You are here: Home / Archives for policy

Disney takes its cues from the evidence

June 11, 2012 By Leave a Comment

In major news this week, the Walt Disney Co. banned the advertising of junk foods from its television, radio and Internet programming. Under the new guidelines, advertisers who want to promote food and beverages on Disney programming for children must meet guidelines on serving size, calories, and fat and sugar content.

While it’s inspiring that such a large company is interested in promoting health among kids, I was even more inspired that Disney created a policy based on real evidence. Because, in fact, there is a growing body of evidence that links media consumption – and specifically advertisements – with negative health outcomes for children.

This systematic review, for example, looked at 173 studies examining the relationship between media consumption and health outcomes among children. In 80 percent of the studies, more media exposure was associated with a negative health outcome, and childhood obesity had the strongest correlation. This analysis considered the quantity of media that children watched, but not the content.

Another meta-analysis found a significant association between the proportion of children overweight and the number commercials per hour on children’s television, especially ads that promoting junk foods. The study used data from surveys of advertising on children’s television and estimates of the prevalence of overweight among children, in the U.S., Australia and eight European countries. It concluded the quantity and content of advertising on children’s television programs has a specific effect on children.

It’s great to see a major company taking cues from the evidence in an effort to improve the health of children!

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness, policy Tagged With: , , , , ,

A clearinghouse of education evidence

March 8, 2012 By 1 Comment

Parents across the nation send their children to public schools with the confidence that principals and teachers are providing an environment where children can learn, grow and thrive.

We hear so much about in the news about ways to improve our education system – especially in this presidential election year, when candidates are offering proposals and counter-proposals to fix our schools.

But is there any evidence as to what really works?  As a parent of young children, our schools are one important place where I want to see evidence-based guidelines put in place.

The best place I’ve found for evidence-based information on education is called the What Works Clearinghouse, an initiative by the U.S. Department of Education that conducts systematic reviews on education research to provide educators with the information they need to make evidence-based decisions.

The project is a true treasure trove of information, with research reviews on a myriad of topics including dropout prevention, school choice, early childhood education and student behavior, to name just a few.

On a recent cruise through the site, several topics piqued my interested including:

I’m certainly going to share this amazing resource with my son’s teachers, and use to gather information about the curriculums he’ll be learning in elementary school.  As a parent, it’s a relief to know there’s a place to look for reliable, evidence-based information on education.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, policy, The Learning Center, Youth Development Tagged With: , , , , ,

Stuck in a jam? The science behind traffic

January 24, 2012 By 1 Comment

?  So a recent story in the Washington Post about the science of traffic piqued my interest.  It turns out (of course!) there’s an entire field of study around alleviating traffic problems that spans city planning, human behavior and health topics.

There are mathematical models that explain why traffic slows for seemingly no reason at all.  (It turns out these traffic jams are self-sustaining waves, similar to the detonation waves produced by explosions.

Another study has found that it’s actually the rate of merging that contributions to slow-downs on freeways, instead of the capacity of the road.

While there’s much evidence on the causes of traffic congestion, research has pointed to proven solution to solve the problem. But it’s good to know that scientists are working on it.

On a related note, there  is plenty of evidence available on the topic of preventing traffic accidents that lead to injury or death. The Cochrane Collaboration has put together a list of systematic review on various methods to reduce injuries and deaths caused by cars and trucks.  Among them:

Solving issues related to traffic congestion and accidents is just another area where it pays to consult the research.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, policy Tagged With: , ,

New evidence on global warming

January 19, 2012 By 1 Comment

An international team of researchers have developed a new plan to slow climate change – one that involves reducing levels of two of the lesser-known contributors to global warming.

Their paper, published this week in the journal Science, recommends 14 actions to reduce emissions of methane gas – a greenhouse gas more powerful than carbon dioxide – and black carbon – the technical term for soot, which absorbs heat from the sun’s rays.

Among the measures they suggest are:

  • encouraging people to use switch cleaner diesel engines and cookstoves
  • building more efficient kilns and coke ovens
  • capturing methane at landfills and oil wells
  • reducing methane emissions from rice paddies by draining them more often.

Adopting the study’s recommendations would reduce projected temperatures by approximately 0.5°C by 2050, as well as avoiding millions of premature deaths due to air pollution and increasing crop yields thanks to reductions in ozone.

The proposal is a projection, to be sure.  But there is a large body of evidence available that shows there are many benefits to reducing these contaminants.

Systematic reviews show that reducing soot levels improves lung function and pregnancy outcomes. And it’s been clearly documented that methane gas warms the atmosphere, and that reducing its levels will boost agricultural yields.

So, in fact, the new study delivers another benefit, as noted in this New York Times column: it offers practical solutions with the immediate benefits of improving health and helping farmers produce more.

To us, it seems like a proposal worth putting into practice.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, In The Media, policy Tagged With: , , , , ,

More evidence supporting the systematic review

December 14, 2011 By 2 Comments

Frequent EBL readers are well aware of the importance we put on systematic reviews, studies that synthesize many articles on a given topic and draw a conclusion about what the body of evidence shows.

So we were excited this week to stumble across a paper funded by the Milbank Memorial Fund and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control extolling the virtues of the systematic review for improving health across populations – especially for our policymakers.

The paper includes case studies on a wide range of topics — underage drinking, tobacco use and traffic safety interventions, to name a few.

And it draws the following conclusions about systematic reviews, in general:

  • Policymakers should feel confident about the findings of systematic reviews because, by definition, they help reduce the bias often present in single studies.
  • Systematic reviews help policymakers work efficiently and reduce the influence of outside interests.
  • Researchers in all fields must make strategic efforts to publicize and implement review findings. (Here at EBL, we’re doing our best in this area!)
  • Enhancing the “literacy” of decision makers and the public about the strengths and weaknesses of different types of evidence can help improve population health policy.

So there you have it: More evidence in support of the systematic review.  The next time you’re thinking about making a health decision, considering checking the body of evidence. Just Google “systematic review” along with the topic you’re interested in and see what you can find.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, policy, The Learning Center Tagged With: , , ,

The real story on unemployment

September 6, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Since late in 2007, people across the globe have been coping with an economic downturn that’s led to decreased house values, falling stock prices and higher unemployment rates. The financial crisis has impacted people across the world in different ways.

In the United States, unemployment has been especially troublesome.  And a new report from the University of New Hampshire’s Carsey Institute details exactly who has been hit the hardest.

Although all groups of Americans have experienced rising unemployment, increases have been significantly larger for men, young adults, the least educated, and single parents.

The report shows that unemployment has rose more in central cities and suburban places than in rural places, most likely because rural unemployment was already high prior to the start of the recession.

Rural areas have continued to suffer from the highest unemployment rates for unmarried people. Single fathers in rural areas registered the single larg­est increase in unemployment throughout the recession, rising almost 11 percentage points to 23 percent in 2010.

Young adults who finished high school since 2007 have been some of the hardest hit.

“This is particularly disturbing in that not only are these youths losing income in the short term, but may also suffer from long-term ‘scarring’ in terms of lost wages,” the report says. “In most cases, unemployment was high among the young and less-educated groups in 2007, only to increase rapidly by 2010.”

The report used data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey, a monthly survey of about 50,000 households conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, policy Tagged With: , ,

What does the evidence say about risk communication?

August 22, 2011 By 1 Comment

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has published a new report that’s right up our alley. It’s called Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide.

The introduction offers an explanation of evidence-based health communications that we believe should be the standard for all organizations, from corporations to government agencies to universities.

“…Sound communications must be evidence-based in two related ways. One is that communications should be consistent with the science — and not do things known not to work nor ignore known problems. The second is communications should be evaluated — because even the best science cannot guarantee results. Rather, the best science produces the best-informed best guesses about how well communications will work. However, even these best guesses can miss the mark, meaning that they must be evaluated to determine how good they are and how they can be improved.”

The report goes onto address the concept of communicating risks and benefits across a wide range of fields – in health provider settings, news coverage and corporate communications to name a few – and offer practical tips about using evidence in all sorts of communications.

Cornell’s own Valerie Reyna, whom we’ve written about before, authored Chapter 12 about communicating risks and benefits to people of all ages, and her work is extensively quoted in other chapters of the report.

The report is chock-full of useful recommendations.  Among them are:

  • Health professionals should receive specific training on how to communicate the risks and benefits of medical procedures and medicines.
  • Provide information along with explaining meaning to help consumers make good decisions.
  • Test the readability of health care messages to ensure they use plain language.

If you work in the field of health care, this report is a must-read!

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness, policy, The Learning Center

MyPlate: A healthy diet in a glance

June 14, 2011 By 7 Comments

MyPlateYou may have noticed that the federal government launched a new food icon called MyPlate last week. The diagram is as part of a new, evidence-based initiative to improve the diets of Americans that we’ve written about before here on EBL.

The plate is a graphic representation of new dietary guidelines based on an extensive review by 13 nationally-recognized experts in nutrition and health.  While that sounds good, we wondered what the nutrition experts at Cornell think about the new icon.

Senior extension associate, Jennifer Wilkins, Ph.D., R.D., is the community coordinator for Cornell’s Dietetic Internship Program and director of Cornell’s Farm to School Research and Outreach program. On the whole, she’s a fan of the MyPlate graphic.

For one, the plate does a better job of conveying proportionality, she says.  “Advice to ‘make half of your plate fruits and vegetables’ couldn’t be clearer,” Wilkins said. And there’s clear evidence that taking this step alone will lead to a healthier diet.

The guidelines issued along with the plate – such as avoid oversized portions and sugary drinks – are simply worded and convey important steps to take to improving Americans diets.

But there is one aspect missing from the new icon, Wilkins said.

“The important reality is that food quality varies dramatically within each group,” she said. “ It really does matter how much of the grains are whole grains. It matters how, and to what extent fruits and vegetables, and grains are processed. And it matters if chicken is a breast or McNuggetized.”

The bottom line: MyPlate is a step in the right direction, but Americans should make sure they gather even more evidence about a healthy diet.

You can read more of Wilkins’ ideas about MyPlate and healthy eating in her column published in the Albany Times-Union.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness, In The Media, policy

How do Americans think about climate change? In six different ways.

April 19, 2011 By Leave a Comment

As divisive issues go, global climate change is a bit unusual. Often when there is a controversy, it’s because scientists disagree. However, as far as the human origins of climate change, there is actually almost no debate about the core issue; nearly all scientists, and all major scientific bodies, agree that the climate is changing and the primary causes are  “anthropocentric” – that is, caused by human activity.

But  the way much of the the American public sees it is very different. Evidence for just how diverse our views are comes from a scientific survey of the American public conducted  by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, which looked at “The Six Americas” and how their beliefs on climate change vary.

The study found that there are six distinct audiences in the United States, each of which responds to global warming in different ways.  The figure below (from the report) shows the six types and the percentages of Americans in each type.

In general, the Alarmed and the Concerned are more likely to answer questions about climate change correctly than the other groups. Whereas 98% of the alarmed say global warming is happening, only 12% of the Dismissive accept this fact. Similarly, 87% of the Alarmed understand that global warming results mostly from human activities, compared to 3% of the Dismissive.

The same pattern is found on one of the most objective facts about global warming: the degree of scientific consensus. Of the Alarmed, 79% understand that most scientists agree that global warming is actually happening, as do 54% of the Concerned. However, only 16%  of the Doubtful and 7% of the Dismissive think that most scientists agree on this issue.

But the study also found that all groups have misconceptions about global warming, indicating that many Americans know relatively little about climate change. Given that this is one of the most important issues of our time, getting scientifically accurate information out to the public clearly should be a high priority. Understanding how the “Six Americas” differ in their views can help target the information where it is needed most.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, policy Tagged With: , ,

A move toward evidence-based criminal justice

March 17, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Earlier this month, the state of Illinois abolished its death penalty, the fourth state in the U.S. to remove the sentence in the past decade.  Among public leaders, consensus has grown slowly to support the decision not due to questions of morality, but of accuracy. Since 1973, nearly 140 death row inmates across the nation have been found innocent and released from prison before they were executed. 

Case reviews have found some common reasons why inmates are wrongfully-convicted such as eyewitness error, police and prosecutor misconduct, mishandled evidence, faculty testimony by another inmate in exchange for a reduced sentence and false confessions.

The increasing awareness that our criminal justice system doesn’t always get it right has spurred universities and non-profits across the country to reopen investigations for inmates who claim their innocent.  Cornell’s own Death Penalty Project is among the groups that work on such cases.

Maybe more importantly, publicity about wrongful conviction cases has created a movement toward evidence-based crime policy – using research on criminal justice issues to put policies into place that help to ensure our criminal justice system gets it right the first time around. For example, one systematic review of eyewitness testimony procedures found that high levels of stress negatively impact the accuracy of eye-witness testimony.

Researchers at the College of Human Ecology have partnered with Cornell faculty members in psychology and law to conduct basic research on some of these topics relevant to these issues including false memory, child testimony and jury decision-making and offer classes to students interested in this type of research.

The Campbell Collaboration – a clearinghouse for systematic reviews on social policy issues – has a crime and justice group that is working to broaden the information available on criminal justice issues. And other institutions, such as George Mason University, have created centers aimed at translating this research into policies and practices that local law enforcement officials are use in the field.

It’s a good start on a topic that should be pursued vigorously until changes are made.  In many cases our police officers, judges and juries are making life-or-death decisions about people’s lives.  If there’s ever a time to rely on evidence-based practices, this is it.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, In The Media, policy Tagged With: , ,

Professor Dan Lichter: Census drives evidence-based decisions

March 14, 2011 By 1 Comment

As the U.S. Census bureau continues to release data on state demographics, researchers, public officials and program managers across the country are digging into the new information to make decisions about everything from construction projects to quality-of-life issues and emergency services.

EBL sat down this week with Professor Daniel  Lichter, an expert in population studies and public policy at the College of Human Ecology, to talk about the 2010 census and its implications for using data to drive real-life decisions. 

Lichter called the decennial  census “the most important statistical gathering exercise in the entire United States.”  Here are some of this other thoughts about the event.

EBL: Can you describe the historical significance of the census?

Lichter:  We’ve had census every year since 1790. It’s required by U.S. Constitution.  It is conducted to insure the one person, one vote idea – to determine the number of seats each state would receive in the U.S. House of Representatives and to realignvoting districts in each state every ten years.

EBL: How has our use of the information changed over the years?

Lichter: The census is also vital for program planning and public policy. It’s always been used in some sense for those sorts of things, but it’s used now more than ever before. How do we know where to build new highways or schools or whether we need a new waste water treatment plant?

“Today, increasingly, we use census data for identifying particular populations and areas with specific needs so we can more effectively target resources to those areas.  The census is vital for earmarking public funds. It also has a huge constituency in the private sector in terms of marketing. It helps companies decide, for example, where to build new stores.

EBL: How did the 2010 census pan out?

Lichter: It’s probably the most successful census ever in terms of coverage. The census bureau has become very good at identifying hard-to-reach populations and reaching out them.

People should always fill out their census schedules when they get them because it reflects whether they’re accurately represented in Congress and whether they receive their fair share of revenues.  By law, these data are strictly confidential to insure completeness and accuracy.

(The U.S. Census Director recently spoke at Cornell about how his organization was able to collect accurate information. You can read about his talk by clicking here.)

EBL: How do you use census data in your research?

Lichter:  I’m very much interested in the changing racial and demographic composition of the U.S. population. We are almost to the point now where half of the births in the United States are to populations other than non-Hispanic whites.  We are rapidly moving toward a  majority-minority society.

I’m interested in what that means, not only in terms of educating children now, but what it means for the labor force 20 years out.  What we do or don’t do for minority populations today is going to have a major effect on our country 20 years from now.

I’m also interested in racial segregation, and to what extent racial and ethnic groups live near each other. Our population is becoming more diverse, but many communities and neighborhoods are also becoming more segregated. Some of my work tries to understand how race relations are reflected in the geographic distribution of people.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, policy, The Learning Center Tagged With: , ,

How to convince volunteers to care for trees

February 24, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The evidence shows that trees are an important part of our landscape – whether here in forested Ithaca, or in densely populated urban areas.

Studies have found that trees help improve focus, promote a sense of community, and deter crime. So it’s no surprise that major cities across the nation are launching initiatives to plant trees. New York City is undertaking one such project.  Called the MillionTreesNYC initiative, it aims to plant one million trees across all five city boroughs by 2017.

But urban forestry projects typically encounter a problem, explained Gretchen Ferenz, a senior extension associate at Cornell Cooperative Extension in New York City.

“Capital project funds will support planting and immediate care of trees for a couple of years, but costs for longer term care to ensure a young tree’s growth often are not included in municipal budgets,” she told the Cornell Chronicle for a story. “As a result, many urban trees do not survive into maturity.”

Ferenz’s office has joined forces with Cornell’s Department of Natural Resources to create the Urban Forestry Community Engagement Model, a program that provides workshops about the importance of trees to community members in two New York City neighborhoods. The goal is to enlist residents and organizations to become stewards of their community’s trees and, ultimately, to develop resources to help groups around the country do the same.

As part of the program, they’re collecting evidence to learn how to get more community members involved in caring for trees in their neighborhoods. They recently published a study that examines motivations and recruitment strategies for urban forestry volunteers.

Through a survey and focus groups, as well as a review of existing literature on the topic, the team found volunteer who plant and care for trees in their communities are motivated by a wide range of factors.  And most have a limited knowledge of the benefits of urban forests.

This type of work is an important first step in helping cities learn how to engage community members to help care for trees in their neighborhoods – and ultimately in making our world a bit greener.

(You can learn more about the Urban Forestry Community Engagement Model by clicking here.)

Filed Under: Cornell Cooperative Extension, Evidence-Based Living, policy Tagged With: , , , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »
Skip to toolbar