In a study published last month, researchers who asked cancer survivors about their health behaviour found that survivors indulged in poorer/riskier behaviours than people who have never been diagnosed with cancer:
From:
A total of 18,510 had detailed history on health behaviors and previous cancer history. Overall 2713 (14.7%) reported a previous cancer history. We found statistically significant results indicating that cancer survivors were less likely than those with no cancer history to:
report their overall health as “excellent†(13.6% vs. 21.5%), ...
Was that a trick question?! You said you have had a diagnoses of cancer. Would you say your overall health is "excellent"?
to engage in moderate or strenuous exercise (56.5% vs. 63.3%), and to use complementary and alternative medicine (57.4% vs. 60.2%).
Wonder whether the analyses stratified people with a recent vs. distant diagnoses of cancer... need to look at the tables. Maybe the survivors were physically unable to exercise so much or maybe were on standard medication that could have had interactions with random alternative medicines had they chosen to take them. Maybe they were advised not to take OTC medicine.
Conversely, cancer survivors were more likely to be current smokers (6.3% vs. 5.5%), rate their overall health as “poor†(15.8% vs. 9.1%), and to report more weight gain over time. Among cancer survivors, differences also emerged by the type of primary cancer. For example, cervical cancer survivors (n = 370) were most likely to report being current smokers (15.7%) and regular alcohol users (71.7%) compared with other survivors. Ovarian (n = 185) and uterine (n = 262) cancer survivors most frequently reported being obese (41% and 34.4%, respectively). Cervical cancer survivors reported the largest weight gain (4.9 lbs at 5 y and 13.4 lbs at 10 y).
The study totally begs these questions:
- Do people who are diagnosed with cancer always have poorer behaviours to start with?
- Do cancer survivors indulge in poorer behaviours because they are fatalist?
- Or do they just feel like they have poorer behaviours just because they got diagnosed with cancer and answer in that vein on the administered questionnaires ie. a kind of survivor bias?
- Or did they feel obliged to assign blame for their diagnoses on past and present behaviours?
- Or maybe the non-cancer survivors in this study didn't really feel the need to spill on their current health behaviours in so much detail as the survivors?
Who knows.
Do you remember what you ate last Monday through Friday - in detail, morning, afternoon, evening? Do you remember how you generally ate in the past decade? If you are not tracking your periods for some specific reason (or maybe have an android period-tracking application to record days and symptoms for fun), how accurately do you remember the date your last period ended? Do you remember the brands and compositions of the hormone pills you took 20 years back?
Sometimes I wonder if our questionnaires are eliciting anything useful. Or if we should trust them so much. It would be nicer to have more objective ways of tracking health behaviours and milestones.
No matter what I was writing or writing for... If I use a computer I have to use the software the place I'm submitting it to uses..... Can't think of another word like program there used to be something I used .... Now if they state what software they use then part of writing a paper is to use what they use.... yeah it would suck if they used some program that was only on macs and didn't work in word but if I knew that going in then that is what I would have to use....
Peter, the logic seems to be, if this is what everyone is used to, this is what you should do. I could not disagree more.
First, what everyone uses is for the most part influenced by the inability to learn and adapt to new things that make life substantially easier. Second, what the clueless population uses for 3 page documents without references is not ideal for a 300 page document with several intricacies. Third, given the common final expectation of a precisely typeset PDF (with barbaric margin requirements and whatnots defined by my Uni), expecting me to use Word to reach that goal is frankly the most atrocious directive. Fourth, not everyone uses Word for dissertations and LaTeX is WIDELY used in almost ALL academic circles, just not the somewhat rusty folks in my current situation. LaTeX has been around since 1980 - half a decade before Windows was grafted upon the world! :::link::: What more can I say.
And most importantly, why do you think word integrates well with everything? I have a mile long list of things it does not integrate with - including consistent format, bibliographies, mathematical notations - some of the most important attributes of a really long document.
And quite honestly - they don't even need to know what software I use to produce my documents. If the Uni wants PDFs in the end, then isn't it time people learn to review PDFs and not keep on expecting the .doc$hit? All this non-consistent, repetitive and VERY PAINFUL formatting seems like an infinite waste of time to me. I could achieve awesome professional results using LaTeX with a fraction of this effort I am pouring into definining styles in Word.
I don't know all the details.... But from what I understand if you are a company and get a Windows based computer or even a school then it comes with word and that is what everyone knows... All the different software things like say powerpoint and things for slide shows and all that stuff is all integrated....
Now I know that PDFs are common and that at least Adobe makes things so you can read them or download a book or many things in that form...No idea what other companies there are..... But is word works fine to integrate with everything else why even mess with PDF.... Now if one does again I wouldn't know about on Mac's but with Widows based computers at some point they got adobe so if they did do PDFs that is what they would know not this other program.....
Now you might be asking what is my point.... Well if the problem is that this software no one else knows how to use it or integrate it....Even though you love it....Then any project or work should be used on or done on what they use.....
What does it take for people to catch up? These are people who almost write for a living and they have been doing it on Word for like what - 15 years? I think the problem is they all have their PAs and admins do all the dirty formatting for them and have forgotten everything about how wretched m$shitword can make your life if you are dealing with anything other than a 2 page doc with multiple content types and bibliographies. And let's not even talk about the lack of knowledge about BibTeX and reliance (and sometimes insistence) on absolutely bottom of the barrel reference software services like endnote and refworks. ugh
Personally, I wouldn't even do a 2 page doc on M$ if left to my devices.
Ya it seems ridiculous. You should make it a pre-requisite of all future endeavours that the people are fluent in the technology of the last decade at least.