Something to do on your holiday?

Q: Did you see that going to the opera makes you live longer?

A: No, it just makes it feel longer

Q: ◔_◔

Q: This story, from the New York Times.

Now, there is evidence that simply being exposed to the arts may help people live longer.

Researchers in London who followed thousands of people 50 and older over a 14-year period discovered that those who went to a museum or attended a concert just once or twice a year were 14 percent less likely to die during that period than those who didn’t.

A: Actually, if you look at the research paper, they were just over half as likely to die during the study period: 47.5% vs 26.6%. And those who went at least monthly were only 60% less likely to die: 18.6% died.

Q: You don’t usually see the media understating research findings, do you?

A: No. And they’re not.  The 14% lower (and 31% lower for monthly or more frequent) are after attempting to adjust away the effects of other factors related to both longevity and arts/museums/etc

Q: You mean like the opera is expensive and so rich people are more likely to go?

A: Yes, although some museums are free, and so are some Shakespeare, etc,

Q: And if you can’t see or hear very well you’re less likely to go to opera or art galleries. Or if you can’t easily walk short distances or climb stairs?

A: Yes, that sort of thing.

Q: So the researchers didn’t just ignore all of that, like some people on Twitter were saying?

A: No. The BMJ has some standards.

Q: And so the 14% reduction left over after that is probably real?

A: No, it’s still probably exaggerated.  Adjusting for this sort of thing is hard.  For example, for wealth they used which fifth of the population you were in. The top fifth had half the death rate of the bottom fifth, and were five times as likely to Art more often than monthly.  For education, the top category was “has a degree”, and they were half as likely to die in the study period and 4.5 times more likely to Art frequently than people with no qualifications.

Q: “Has a degree” is a pretty wide category if you’re lumping them all together.

A: Exactly.  If you could divide these really strong predictors up more finely (and measure them better), you’d expect to be able to remove more bias.  You’d also worry about things they didn’t measure — maybe parts of the UK with more museums also have better medical care, for example.

Q: But it could be true?

A: Sure. I don’t think 14% mortality rate reduction from going a few times a year is remotely plausible, but some benefit seems quite reasonable.

Q: It might make you less lonely or less depressed, for example

A: Those are two of the variables they tried to adjust for, so if their adjustment was successful that’s not how it works.

Q: Isn’t that unfair? I mean, if it really works by making you less lonely, that still counts!

A: Yes, that’s one of the problems with statistical adjustment — it can be hard to decide whether something’s a confounding factor or part of the effect you’re looking for.

Q: But if people wanted to take their kids to the museum over the holidays, at least the evidence is positive?

A: Well, the average age of the people in this study was 65 at the start of the study, so perhaps grandkids.  Anyway, I think the StatsChat chocolate rule applies: if you’re going to a concert or visiting a museum primarily for the health effects, you’re doing it wrong.