October 3, 2016

Stat of the Week Competition: October 1 – 7 2016

By

Each week, we would like to invite readers of Stats Chat to submit nominations for our Stat of the Week competition and be in with the chance to win an iTunes voucher.

Here’s how it works:

  • Anyone may add a comment on this post to nominate their Stat of the Week candidate before midday Friday October 7 2016.
  • Statistics can be bad, exemplary or fascinating.
  • The statistic must be in the NZ media during the period of October 1 – 7 2016 inclusive.
  • Quote the statistic, when and where it was published and tell us why it should be our Stat of the Week.

Next Monday at midday we’ll announce the winner of this week’s Stat of the Week competition, and start a new one.

The fine print:

  • Judging will be conducted by the blog moderator in liaison with staff at the Department of Statistics, The University of Auckland.
  • The judges’ decision will be final.
  • The judges can decide not to award a prize if they do not believe a suitable statistic has been posted in the preceeding week.
  • Only the first nomination of any individual example of a statistic used in the NZ media will qualify for the competition.
  • Individual posts on Stats Chat are just the opinions of their authors, who can criticise anyone who they feel deserves it, but the Stat of the Week award involves the Department of Statistics more officially. For that reason, we will not award Stat of the Week for a statistic coming from anyone at the University of Auckland outside the Statistics department. You can still nominate and discuss them, but the nomination won’t be eligible for the prize.
  • Employees (other than student employees) of the Statistics department at the University of Auckland are not eligible to win.
  • The person posting the winning entry will receive a $20 iTunes voucher.
  • The blog moderator will contact the winner via their notified email address and advise the details of the $20 iTunes voucher to that same email address.
  • The competition will commence Monday 8 August 2011 and continue until cancellation is notified on the blog.
avatar

Rachel Cunliffe is the co-director of CensusAtSchool and currently consults for the Department of Statistics. Her interests include statistical literacy, social media and blogging. See all posts by Rachel Cunliffe »

Nominations

  • avatar
    Sonia Barrish

    This article is a follow on, from an article last week which caught my attention, as it was published two days after giving birth to my first baby at home with wonderful midwives in attendance.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/parenting/84717932/bad-outcomes-for-new-babies-more-likely-with-midwife-research-shows

    After reading the original article, I did have some questions, which luckily it looks like this new article has questioned.
    Although factors such as age, ethnicity & smoking status were controlled for, I looked at the actual study, and it definitely did appear that mode of delivery wasn’t accounted for. Which is interesting, as although I couldn’t find any information on the proportion of c sections amongst midwives vs obstetricians in NZ, the following shows that in the US, there was higher rates of breastfeeding, lower c section rates, and lower other intervantions in midwife led care. And I have heard the situation is similiar in NZ in this aspect.
    http://www.midwife.org/acnm/files/cclibraryfiles/filename/000000002128/midwifery%20evidence-based%20practice%20issue%20brief%20finalmay%202012.pdf

    Additionally, although the outcomes mentioned are bad, they are also rare. Less than 1% of babies had some sort of hypoxia/asphyxia, compared to the c section rate in NZ which is about 1 in 4, so an increase in odds for c sections will be of a much higher magnitude than the increase in odds of hypoxia/asphyxia/similiar.

    But it is very surprising that mode of delivery wasn’t controlled for, as one would assume that would definitely have an impact on the way the child reacts when coming into the world!

    So, it’s good that this newer article is now saying caution needs to be taken with this data – as the original appears to have created a lot of scaremongering and criticism about midwife led care, by picking out a few points where midwife led care showed poorer results, despite there being other areas where midwife led care may be better. However the new article also didn’t go into depth of actually looking up where midwife led care is better, simply stating that more research is needed, which doesn’t exactly calm the fears of new mothers who have only read this research, and don’t know about the other benefits of midwife led care. I even received an email from one of the NZ baby websites on behalf of the Ministry of Health & College of Midwives talking about how there is no need to be concerned over the recent media coverage. So hopefully some new research will come out soon and be reported on in the media to calm these fears that now appear to have been created!

    8 years ago