/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Problem 90 Smoking and heart attacks A Reut... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

Smoking and heart attacks A Reuters story (April 2,2003) reported that "The number of heart attack victims fell by almost \(60 \%\) at one hospital six months after a smoke-free ordinance went into effect in the area (Helena, Montana), a study showed, reinforcing concerns about second-hand smoke." The number of hospital admissions for heart attack dropped from just under seven per month to four a month during the six months after the smoking ban. a. Did this story describe an experiment or an observational study? b. In the context of this study, describe how you could explain to someone who has never studied statistics that association does not imply causation. For instance, give a potential reason that could explain this association.

Short Answer

Expert verified
a. This is an observational study. b. Association does not imply causation; other factors, like a health campaign, could reduce heart attacks.

Step by step solution

01

Identify the Study Type

To determine whether the Reuters story describes an experiment or an observational study, we analyze the setup. An observational study involves observing subjects without manipulating any variables, while an experiment involves direct intervention and control over variables. This study observes the effect of a smoke-free ordinance on heart attack rates without researchers intervening, hence it is an observational study.
02

Explain Association vs. Causation

Association between two variables means that they happen to occur together frequently, but it does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. In this study, even though there is an association between the smoking ban and decreased heart attack rates, this does not prove that the smoking ban caused the reduction in heart attacks. External factors, such as improved diet or increased physical activity in the population, could also contribute to lower heart attack rates.
03

Provide a Potential Explanation

To clarify why association does not imply causation, consider a hypothetical situation: A nearby health campaign might have encouraged healthier lifestyle changes, coinciding with the smoking ordinance. This could lead to reduced heart attacks independently from the smoking ban. Thus, while the smoking ban and reduced heart attacks are associated, we cannot say one caused the other.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Association vs. Causation
When looking at the concepts of association and causation, it is crucial to distinguish the differences between them. Association refers to a relationship between two variables where they tend to occur together. However, this does not mean that one variable causes the other to occur. For example, consider the study from Helena, Montana, which observed a reduction in heart attack rates following the implementation of a smoking ban.

This association suggests that heart attack rates seem to decrease when smoking is banned. But this does not confirm that the smoking ban is the direct cause of the decline in heart attacks. There might be other factors at play, such as changes in healthcare access or lifestyle improvements, that could also influence heart attack rates. It's important to remember that just because two variables are related doesn't mean one causes the other.

To better understand this, think about umbrellas and rain. When it rains, people use umbrellas, so there's an association between rain and umbrellas. But the presence of umbrellas doesn't cause the rain—they simply occur together due to a common external factor, which is the weather.
Second-hand Smoke
Second-hand smoke refers to the smoke exhaled by a smoker or emitted from the burning end of a cigarette, cigar, or pipe. This smoke contains thousands of chemicals, many of which can be harmful and have been linked to health issues such as heart disease and lung cancer.

When a smoke-free ordinance is enacted, it aims to protect non-smokers from the dangers of second-hand smoke. By reducing exposure to this smoke, the risks of negative health outcomes for non-smokers can also decrease. In the case of Helena, a ban on smoking may have had additional benefits by reducing the number of heart attack admissions, aligning with findings that exposure to second-hand smoke increases the risk of heart disease.

To reduce the impacts of second-hand smoke, public health agencies continue to promote smoke-free environments. Smoke-free ordinances help clear the air in public spaces like restaurants, workplaces, and bars, leading to healthier environments for everyone.
Heart Attack Rates
Heart attack rates are important measures of public health and provide insight into the cardiovascular health of a population. A heart attack occurs when the blood flow to a part of the heart is blocked, resulting in damage to the heart muscle. Several factors contribute to heart attacks, including genetics, lifestyle choices, and environmental exposure, such as to smoke.

In the case from Helena, the observational study noted a significant drop in the rate of hospital admissions for heart attacks after a smoking ban. The initial rate of nearly seven admissions per month fell to four per month, suggesting a potential link between the smoking ban and reduced heart attacks. However, as discussed earlier, association does not imply causation.

Understanding heart attack rates helps identify risk factors and direct public health interventions to improve outcomes. Public health measures such as smoking bans, increased physical activity promotion, and dietary guidelines are often implemented to address these risks and improve heart health.
Smoking Ban
A smoking ban prohibits the act of smoking in certain areas or during certain activities. Most commonly, smoking bans are implemented in public places like restaurants, workplaces, and public transport. These bans aim to protect the public from the harms of smoking and second-hand smoke exposure, which can lead to adverse health effects.

The smoking ban in Helena serves as a good example of one of these public health initiatives. The observational study showed a correlation between the introduction of this smoke-free ordinance and a significant decline in heart attack admissions at a local hospital. While the ban is associated with improved health outcomes, causation cannot be confirmed without further investigation.

Overall, smoking bans have far-reaching benefits, contributing to a healthier environment by reducing the prevalence of smoke in the air. They can lead to widespread improvements in public health by minimizing the risk and exposure to harmful smoke-related chemicals.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Issues in clinical trials A randomized clinical trial is planned for AIDS patients to investigate whether a new treatment provides improved survival over the current standard treatment. It is not known whether it will be better or worse. a. Why do researchers use randomization in such experiments rather than letting the subjects choose which treatment they will receive? b. When patients enrolling in the study are told the purpose of the study, explain why they may be reluctant to be randomly assigned to one of the treatments. c. If a researcher planning the study thinks the new treatment is likely to be better, explain why he or she may have an ethical dilemma in proceeding with the study.

A study published in 2010 in the New England Journal of Medicine discusses a breast-cancer screening program that began in Norway in 1996 and was expanded geographically through \(2005 .\) Women in the study were offered mammography screening every two years. The goal of the study was to compare incidence- based rates of death from breast cancer across four groups: 1\. Women who from 1996 through 2005 were living in countries with screening. 2\. Women who from 1996 through 2005 were living in countries without screening. 3\. A historical-comparison group who lived in screening countries from 1986 through 1995 . 4\. A historical-comparison group who lived in nonscreening countries from 1986 through \(1995 .\) Data were analyzed for 40,075 women. Rates of death were reduced in the screening group as compared to the historical screening group and in the nonscreening group as compared to the historical nonscreening group. a. Is this an observational or experimental study? b. Identify the explanatory and response variable(s). c. Does the study prove that being offered mammography screening causes a reduction in death rates associated with breast cancer? Why or why not?

In a study by Karen Rodenroth, "A study of the relationship between physical fitness and academic performance", conducted among students of the fourth and fifth grade in a rural Northeast Georgia elementary school, it was found that students who are more involved in physical education class are more likely to have high grades. a. What is the population of interest for this survey? b. Describe why this is an observational study. c. Identify a lurking variable in this study.

Cell phone use Using the Internet, find a study about cell phone use and its potential risk when used by drivers of automobiles. a. Was the study an experiment or an observational study? b. Identify the response and explanatory variables. c. Describe any randomization or control conducted in the study as well as attempts to take into account lurking variables. d. Summarize conclusions of the study. Do you see any limitations of the study?

Voluntary sports polls In \(2014,\) the Pittsburgh Penguins were ahead of the New York Rangers three games to one in the first round of the National Hockey League playoffs. ESPN.com conducted a voluntary, online poll that asked respondents to predict the outcomes of the rest of the series. Of all 1,094 respondents, \(52 \%\) said Penguins in 5 games, \(34 \%\) said Penguins in 6 games, \(5 \%\) said Penguins in 7 games, and \(9 \%\) said Rangers in 7 games. a. Was this a simple random sample? Explain. b. If ESPN.com wanted to determine the true proportions for all sports fans, how could it do so more reliably?

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.