Group items tagged

News stories regarding the latest in the world of medicine are often popular. After all, most people are interested in their own health and that of their family and friends. But sometimes reports can be confusing. For example, one minute coffee seems good for you, and the next it's bad for your health. And remember when 150 health experts from around the world called for the 2016 Rio Olympic Games to be cancelled or postponed because of the Zika virus? This call was swiftly opposed by both the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Sometimes these contradictions reflect differences of opinion in the scientific community, and different approaches to research. These are a normal part of the scientific process. But in other instances, health news misinforms because of the way some journalists interpret and report research findings.

Interesting look at data around private healthcare and marketisation. Each year, for well over a decade, more people have faced higher health insurance deductibles. The theory goes like this: The more of your own money that you have to spend on health care, the more careful you will be - buying only necessary care, purging waste from the system. But that theory doesn't fully mesh with reality: High deductibles aren't working as intended. A body of research - including randomized studies - shows that people do in fact cut back on care when they have to spend more for it. The problem is that they don't cut only wasteful care. They also forgo the necessary kind. This, too, is well documented, including with randomized studies. People don't know what care they need, which is why they consult doctors.

Where else have you seen risk claims like "x causes 50% increase in health-problem y"? Do you tend to trust these claims? Do you understand what they mean? Would they change your behaviour? "Interpreting health (or any other) risk estimates reported in the media is not straightforward. Even health professionals can get tripped up trying to make sense of these statistics, so it is no wonder the public can easily be confused or misled. Often there is tendency to overreact to risk estimates, so it's worth unpacking what these really mean."

For the 11 million Australians with private hospital cover, premium rises are nothing new. The 3.95% average increase on April 1, 2018 will be the seventeenth consecutive year in which insurance premiums have been hiked up. Health insurance premiums have increased by an average of 5.35% per year since 2000, which is significantly more than wage growth, meaning that households are spending a larger share of their income on health care.

Interesting article about how different kinds of data (like your social media data) can give insights into health, but don't have the same protections as health data

Ourworldindata is a great website discussing lots of different datasets about global issues. This example data-story discusses the issue of global health, giving an overview (and lots of great visualisations), and discussing how we actually measure 'health' (life expectancy, quality of life measures, etc.).

Lots of quantitative information in this video about the impact of sugar on health in the US. Using comedy/performance to make a point about statistics regarding a social/health issue.

The quest for balance in a health news story can fail before the first sentence if the headline isn't appropriately calibrated. With that in mind, I looked at news stories and releases that we reviewed over the past month and compared the headline message with that of the study on which the news is based. About a third of news story headlines and a quarter of news release headlines either misstated the results or went beyond what the research could support.

The more serious problem with California's law is one of effect size. Health, and cancer, aren't binary. Consumers can't just be concerned with whether a danger exists; they also need to be concerned about the magnitude of that risk. Even if there's a statistically significant risk between huge quantities of coffee and some cancer (and that's not proven), it's very, very small. Cigarettes have a clear and easily measured negative impact on people's health. Acrylamide, especially the acrylamide in coffee, isn't even close. Warning labels should be applied when a danger is clear, a danger is large and a danger is avoidable. It's not clear that, with respect to acrylamide, any of these criteria are met. It's certainly not the case regarding coffee. Whatever the intentions of Proposition 65, this latest development could do more harm than good.

What is the basis for the argument that poor Americans will be healthier if they are required to pay substantially more for health care? It appears that proponents like Ms. Verma have looked at research and concluded that having Medicaid is often no better than being uninsured - and thus that any private insurance, even with enormous deductibles, must be better. But our examination of research in this field suggests this kind of thinking is based on a classic misunderstanding: confusing correlation for causation.

Some great quotes in this piece! The language of politics warps our democracy again and again, as in this tax calculation. The media must unpack statistics Last week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Health Foundation published a report on funding for health and social care. One figure from the report was repeated across the headlines. For the NHS to stay afloat, it would require "£2,000 in tax from every household". Shocking stuff!If you're sitting at a bar with a group of friends and Bill Gates walks in, the average wealth of everyone in the room makes you all millionaires. But if you try to buy the most expensive bottle of champagne in the place, your debit card will still be declined. The issue to be addressed, and one to which there is no fully correct answer, is how we can put numbers into a context that enables people to make informed choices. Big numbers are hard to conceptualise - most of us have no intuitive understanding of what £56bn even looks like.

Good example of a contentious issue. In an Australian study published today, we show that if the government were to combine taxes and subsidies on a range of foods and beverages, it could substantially improve the health of Australians and potentially free up billions in health care spending.

A psychologist compared online reviews of three medical products with results from clinical trials, and found the reviews are skewed towards the positive. The author of the study, Dr Micheál de Barra, wanted to look into whether people who have had good outcomes from treatments are more likely to go online and give positive reviews than people who have had average or poor outcomes. As such, the product reviews provided by online retailers may be distorted. The author looked at Amazon.com - the US version of the site - and analysed two cholesterol-reducing products and one weight loss treatment. In general, he found the extent of cholesterol reduction or weight loss reported by online reviewers was substantially greater than that demonstrated in randomised controlled trials, a more reliable source of evidence on effectiveness.

Discusses a recent paper and press-release (a short summary circulated to the media by the people involved. In research, this is generally a summary of the paper often published by the university or organisation that has conducted the research). Do you think starting to eat nuts is likely to decrease your risk of heart disease? What other behaviours or characteristics do you think nut-eating might be associated with? Would any of them also be related to health factors?

Using comedy/performance to make a point about statistics regarding a social/health issue.

Using comedy/performance to make a point about statistics regarding a social/health issue.

In this case, because pancreatic cancer is relatively rare, the impressive-sounding 50% reduction doesn't amount to very much. According to the American Cancer Society, a 60-year-old man has a 0.41% (1 in 241) chance of developing pancreatic cancer during the next ten years. (Risk varies greatly with age and is much lower at younger ages.) So cutting that risk in half might bring it down to about 0.2% (1 in 480). It's a 50% drop, sure, but the risk was already very small to begin with. In this case, it's more helpful to news and health care consumers to describe it as a 0.2 percentage point reduction. And then there are the harms of regular aspirin use; the Yale news release that the tweet links to doesn't mention any. But taking aspirin regularly isn't a harmless intervention - far from it. It's well known that taking aspirin every day can cause serious bleeding in the gastrointestinal system and, less frequently, in the brain. That's why guidelines for aspirin use in cardiovascular disease prevention don't recommend it for people at low risk of a heart attack. The potential benefits may be outweighed by the risks of a serious bleed.

Dismissing people's worries as baseless, whether that's about the safety of mobile phones or fluoridated drinking water, is one of the least effective ways of communicating public health risks. Yet it is common for people to "reassure" like this, both at home and in professional roles as experts, officials or corporate managers. 1. Hose down your own outrage first 2. Respect people's fears 3. Build trust 4. Don't panic about panic 5. Your actions communicate more than your words 6. Play the long game

Uses the example of health treatments to illustrate some of the problems with using the average

Nice discussion of the data around contraception choices. Shortly after Donald Trump was elected president I started noticing an interesting trend on my social media newsfeeds. And no, I'm not talking about the near-constant bickering of people with differing political opinions. I started seeing post after post from friends publicly asking one another about their experiences with different forms of birth control. The motivation for these kinds of conversations centered around the pending rollback of copay-free contraception, but have since been re-kindled every time reproductive rights come up in the political arena. And it's not just talk. Many of these conversations centered around the use of long-term contraceptives like intra-uterine devices or IUDs which can protect against pregnancy for 3 - 12 years. In the months immediately following the 2016 election, AthenaHealth reported a 19% increase in IUD-related doctor's visits and Planned Parenthood reported a 900% increase in patients seeking IUDs. Cait, 27, recently switched to a copper IUD, and said that she made the switch due to convenience and "because now in light of our current administration I'd like to have something that will continue to work and be affordable even if I end up without health insurance."