Reference no: EM131064410
MINI CASE 9.2
There have been a number of studies that have found that cycle helmets are effective in reducing head injury to cyclists. By integrating the results of these independent studies (using a statistical procedure known as ‘meta-analysis') Attewell et al. (2001) found that wearing cycle helmets reduced the risk of head injury, facial injury and fatal injury by 60 per cent, 47 per cent and 73 per cent respectively. However, the risk of neck injury was increased by 36 per cent.
In re-examining the Attewell study, Elvik (2011) suggests that some earlier studies had not been included and therefore the analysis had ‘publication' bias, i.e. the researcher attaches more weight to positive outcomes than negative outcomes. Elvik re-analyzed the Attewell data, adjusted for ‘publication' bias and also added post-2001 study data. He concluded that the protective effects attributed to cycle helmets where not as great as Attewell suggests: the risk of head injury was reduced by 42 per cent, risk of facial injury was reduced by only 17 per cent, and the risk of neck injury was increased by 32 per cent. Elvik also makes the comment that although cycle helmets clearly reduce the risk of head injury this risk varies according to the type of helmet used, and suggests that the more common soft shell helmets offer less protection than hard shell helmets.
In New Zealand, where cycle helmets are compulsory, the media reported on Elvik's findings. One newspaper report, although supporting the wearing of helmets because they can reduce the risk of head injuries, highlighted one finding: the wearing of a helmet had negligible effect on the combined risk of head, face or neck injury.
Elvik's findings were also reported in the cycling press prompting debate between the pro and anti-cycle helmet wearers.
|
Sorts of games result in two losses and four wins
: In tennis you win a game if you score four points before your opponent scores three points. Or, if you both score three points at some stage you win if you manage to score two points in a row after the three-all stage before your opponent does.
|
|
Differentiation strategy in relation to closest competitor
: Develop the companys branding, pricing, and distribution strategy - Develop the differentiation strategy in relation to the closest competitor.
|
|
Swap bank in the interest swap
: 1) Illustrate how Company A benefits from the use of interest rate swap. 2) Summarize the risks taken by the swap bank in the interest swap with Company B. 3) Is it feasible for the swap bank to customize an interest rate swap that provide a cost sav..
|
|
What standards used in your jurisdiction for a insanity plea
: What are the specific laws and rules regarding the documentation of psychological services? What are the differences between the requirements for clinical work and the requirements for forensic work, if any?
|
|
The results of these independent studies
: In re-examining the Attewell study, Elvik (2011) suggests that some earlier studies had not been included and therefore the analysis had ‘publication' bias, i.e. the researcher attaches more weight to positive outcomes than negative outcomes. Elvi..
|
|
Compare and contrast the major determinants of healthcare
: Assess the efficiency of the types of economic incentives available to providers in the delivery of healthcare services in your own state.
|
|
Analyze real world scenarios by creating a technology guide
: IT 210 - Analyze real world scenarios by creating a technology guide for the business owner. Leverage both the textbook and external sources to complete this assignment.
|
|
Aggregate value of the company stock
: After the Salomon Brothers bidding scandal, the aggregate value of the company's stock dropped by far more than it paid in fines and settlements of lawsuits. Why?
|
|
Decision regarding what interest to charge
: An acquaintance asks you for a loan of $1000. Discuss the factors that will go into your decision regarding what interest to charge on the loan?
|