Failure of Freakonomics

Andrew Gelman (Columbia) and Kaiser Fung (NYU) have an interesting article in the Jan/Feb 2012 issue of American Scientist that is worth a read. They review the popular Freakonomics franchise of Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics have set the standard for the popular statistics/economics genre, from which Gelman and Fung have both benefited. (click on their names to see their books)

However, Gelman and Fung have identified a "tendency in the Freakonomics body of work to present speculative or even erroneous claims with an air of certainty."  Overall, I'm not so worried about the small errors they outline, but the reasons for the errors are concerning and the solutions are important ones to consider in any scientific discipline, including healthcare epidemiology.

One major problem they identify is Levitt and Dubner's reliance on linear informal social networks. For example, in the original Freakonomics, the network was "Levitt did the research, Dubner trusted Levitt, the Times trusted Dubner." However, as time pressures built and the need for more unique stories increased in SuperFreakonomics the network devolved into "Levitt trusts brilliant stars such as Myhrvold or Oster, Dubner trusts Levitt, and we the readers trust the Freakonomics brand."

The solution offered was that they should "leave friendship at the door."  I think this is something all scientific disciplines could benefit from.  It is clear that editorial boards, grant review committees and annual meeting planning committees are all at risk from reliance on a "linear" closed social network (in the past called "old boys' network"). They suggest that building more "non-linearity" into their research and evaluation would protect the process from what I might call a "friendship" bias.  Excellent advice, perhaps difficult to put into practice, but worth the effort.

link: American Scientist Jan/Feb 2012

Hand hygiene compliance >98%, do you believe it?

Stephen Dubner of SuperFreakonomics fame has an interesting post relaying a story by Dr. Jeffrey Starke from Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. His hospital got their hand hygiene compliance rates to >98% by first making it part of the employee bonus plan and then part of the hospital executives’ performance bonus. Physicians got compliance that high even though they didn't fall under the bonus plans. Few details are given about amount and frequency of the bonus payouts, what the total cost was and what happened to their infection rates. However, I guess people do respond better to carrots than sticks.

SuperFreakonomics and the hospital epidemiologist

In their new book, SuperFreakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner give us their analysis of why hand hygiene compliance is poor among doctors. They cite the following reasons: the large number of patients that may be seen in a day and how busy doctors are; inaccessibility of sinks, though they note that conveniently placed alcohol-product dispensers are often ignored; perception deficit, that is, doctors believe their compliance is much better than it actually is; and arrogance. Then they put on their economist hats and talk about negative externalities. By this they mean that the doctor bears little risk personally when he or she is noncompliant with hand hygiene and thus the doctor has little incentive to comply. So far, so good. But then they downplay trying to change behavior in favor of solutions that bypass the need for change in behavior (e.g., antimicrobial impregnated products). I think the answer is both behavior change and non-behavioral solutions are required since there aren't enough of the latter to overcome dirty hands. I was particularly happy that they advised doctors to stop wearing neckties to improve infection control (though my happiness is not just infection control related). Also of note, they profile our colleague, Dr. Rekha Murthy, hospital epidemiologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and her successful program on hand hygiene.

So what's the importance of this? The economists haven't really added any new insights or solutions to the problem of healthcare associated infections. But they clearly will have impact by offering their analysis to the general public. Their previous book, Freakonomics, has sold over 4 million copies, and led to the launching of a blog with a full time editor, and a movie is in the works. How did I learn about their interest in infection control? I saw Stephen Dubner on CNN talking about why doctors shouldn't wear neckties. Interestingly, if you do a Google image search of him, you'll note that he rarely wears a tie.