Supporting

Showing posts with label statistics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label statistics. Show all posts

Wednesday, 15 August 2012

New research proposes link between the increase in suicide rates and the recession

Firstly, I want to acknowledge that suicide is quite a difficult subject to discuss. I know that many issues within your subject area are tough but that clearly isn't a reason for me to steer clear of them on Bedtimes and Deadlines. So when I heard this morning of new research looking at the link between increases in suicide rates and current unemployment/recession figures, I thought it worth sharing.

You can read The Guardian's account of the research, published in the British Medical Journal, by clicking here.

If you'd prefer to just head straight to the report then go here.

There are a few recommendations in there that seem quite reasonable; none more so than a call for support staff in job centres to be aware of customers showing worrying levels of depression. As always, if you'd like me to show you how to access mental health research then just ask.

Monday, 25 June 2012

Evidence Based Practice and Public Policy - the future

Hello again. I know you may be having a well deserved rest from studying at the moment, but I've got something that I think is worth sharing...

One of my favourite people to follow on Twitter is a man called Ben Goldacre, a doctor and writer who's best known for his Bad Science column, originally published in the Guardian. He specialises in attacking the misuse of statistics, often by the media.

I mention this because he, along with three other experts, has written a new report for the Cabinet Office on how Randomised Control Trials (RCT's) can be implemented in areas of Public Policy. In case you're new to research skills RCT's are where you basically take two (well, usually two) groups and introduce some particular stimulus (for example, participation in a particular drug rehab programme for people suffering with drug problems) for half the participants.


The 'random' part of dividing the RCT's population into groups is crucial. Without that element you'll often get a skewed result due to volunteers being positively biased to succeed to begin with. At the end of the trial you try and ascertain whether the drug programme group are healthier/happier/ than the control group who haven't taken part in the programme. In a nutshell, this supposedly simple method is what we call 'evidence based practice'.

The new report looking into how RCT's can be used in the area of Public Policy is called 'Test, Learn, Adapt'. I think it's really interesting and thankfully it's pretty straightforward to comprehend. Read or download it from here.

I'll happily talk to you about statistics and research methods if you need assistance with that side of things. At the very least I can suggest some decent resources to make the issues clearer.

Right. You can get back to your summer now...