Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Advertisement
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Out of Hours

Regression is good

Saul Miller
British Journal of General Practice 2016; 66 (647): 322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X685489
Saul Miller
Wooler, Northumberland.
Roles: GP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading
Figure1

So, the headlines suggest the NHS has a whole new plan for primary care.1 Backed up with funding too. The outcome, apparently, will be that our share of the NHS budget will increase steadily over the next 5 years. Really? Perhaps I am just too sceptical to feel warmed by this promise of generosity. I still have hope though; it’s just that it does not stem from any announcements. Weirdly, it comes from a statistical concept.

Statistics is not generally my thing. Analyses such as the recent study comparing data from a number of national registries between 1990 and 2010 have their place of course.2 Many Western European countries, it transpires, have seen significant falls in this period in absolute inequalities in mortality even though relative differences between the best off and the poorest increased. The problem is, this stuff confuses me. It takes a lot of effort to deduce that mortality rates for everyone dropped, and more so for the lowest socioeconomic groups, so the life expectancy gap between the best off and the poorest really did get smaller.

As hopeful as a study like this might be then, I am not really wired to be warmed by statistical analyses the way I should. It is much easier to relate to a good story than to data.

A recent piece about self-harm is a good illustration of this point.3 The anonymous author has clearly self-harmed many times over a long period. She (or he) describes vividly the varied responses of medical staff to her self-inflicted hurts, and to herself more generally, when she has sought treatment. Reading her story made me distinctly uncomfortable: might I lack empathy too in such encounters? Numbers have never affected me like that.

Another example: there has been a 20% fall in the incidence of dementia compared with expectations based on data from 20 years ago, and the drop seems to be due to a better than expected outcome for men over 65.4 This implies my prospects of keeping my marbles in my dotage have thereby improved, provided I stay off the anticholinergics,5 but somehow this still leaves me unmoved. The problem is with relating to the particular — me — from the general.

Regression towards the mean, however: here is a statistical concept that really does give me a warm feeling. It is the idea that if a variable is extreme on its first measurement, it will tend to be closer to the average on its second measurement; and it holds for the opposite case too.

Primary care had a high point in its share of the NHS budget in 2004–2005 following the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), but has slid since to its lowest ebb.6 Regression suggests it is likely to improve in future.

Trusting to this gives me far more hope than any headline.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2016

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. NHS England
    NHS England backs general practice with a multi-billion transformation plan. https://www.england.nhs.uk/2016/04/gpfv/ (accessed 6 May 2016).
  2. 2.↵
    1. Mackenbach JP,
    2. Kulhánová I,
    3. Artnik B,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Changes in mortality inequalities over two decades: register based study of European countries. BMJ 353:i1732.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Self harm and the emergency department
    (2016) BMJ 353:i1732, http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1150 (accessed 6 May 2016).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Matthews FE,
    2. Stephan BC,
    3. Robinson L,
    4. et al.,
    5. Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies (CFAS) Collaboration
    (2016) A two decade dementia incidence comparison from the Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies I and II. Nat Commun 7:11398.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Risacher SL,
    2. McDonald BC,
    3. Tallman EF,
    4. et al.
    (Apr 18, 2016) Association between anticholinergic medication use and cognition, brain metabolism, and brain atrophy in cognitively normal older adults. JAMA Neurol doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2016.0580, [Epub ahead of print].
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.↵
    1. Soteriou M
    (Nov 18, 2013) GP, RCGP demands 11% share of NHS funding for GPs. http://www.gponline.com/rcgp-demands-11-share-nhs-funding-gps/article/1221362 (accessed 6 May 2016).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 66 (647)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 66, Issue 647
June 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Regression is good
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Regression is good
Saul Miller
British Journal of General Practice 2016; 66 (647): 322. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp16X685489

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Regression is good
Saul Miller
British Journal of General Practice 2016; 66 (647): 322. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp16X685489
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Bad Medicine: Medical student numbers
  • Books: His Bloody Project. Documents Relating to the Case of Roderick Macrae
  • Yonder: Physician assistants, timewasting, nursing homes, and social media
Show more Out of Hours

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242