<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Skip The Patch&#8230;Send Them To Church</title>
	<atom:link href="http://georgevanantwerp.com/2008/08/07/skip-the-patchsend-them-to-church/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://georgevanantwerp.com/2008/08/07/skip-the-patchsend-them-to-church/</link>
	<description>Topics Of Interest In Healthcare &#38; Communications</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:26:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frederick Navarro</title>
		<link>http://georgevanantwerp.com/2008/08/07/skip-the-patchsend-them-to-church/#comment-2820</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frederick Navarro]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:15:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://patientadvocate.wordpress.com/?p=1234#comment-2820</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You need to get your understanding of what &quot;null hypothesis&quot; means. In this case, the null hypothesis would be that there is no difference in smoking rates based on frequency of church attendence. The alternate hypothesis is that there is a difference AND that as church attendence frequency goes up smoking rates goes down (a negative correlation). Based on the data, the null hypothesis was rejected. This makes the case that there is an association between smoking and church attendence, but it does not prove that increased church attendence reduces smoking. To prove this you would have to take a group of smokers who all smoke the same, randomly divide them into five groups, have one group go once a week, have a second group go every other week, have a third group go once a month, etc.  , and nothing happens to the last group. After some time (6 months?) measure the smoking rates for every body. If the same trends occur, you can start prescribing church as a smoke reduction intervention.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You need to get your understanding of what &#8220;null hypothesis&#8221; means. In this case, the null hypothesis would be that there is no difference in smoking rates based on frequency of church attendence. The alternate hypothesis is that there is a difference AND that as church attendence frequency goes up smoking rates goes down (a negative correlation). Based on the data, the null hypothesis was rejected. This makes the case that there is an association between smoking and church attendence, but it does not prove that increased church attendence reduces smoking. To prove this you would have to take a group of smokers who all smoke the same, randomly divide them into five groups, have one group go once a week, have a second group go every other week, have a third group go once a month, etc.  , and nothing happens to the last group. After some time (6 months?) measure the smoking rates for every body. If the same trends occur, you can start prescribing church as a smoke reduction intervention.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

