Not so critical of Stacey Solomon

It's worth pointing out that some press stories on Stacey Solomon on her issue of smoking while pregnant don't condemn her and indeed regard public censure of her as abusive.

This is from a writer who appears to believe Jill Pell's quite incredible conclusions about the smoking ban and premature births. Yet she feels like the witch hunt is tasteless:

The anti-smoking lobby, which has attacked her with such venom, certainly has the stats to back up its claim for moral legitimacy. But I balk at the mass condemnation of the one-time nation's sweetheart. 

It has the whiff of the witch hunt. There are glints of glee in the eyeballs of those rushing to crucify this otherwise likable and soft-natured woman. [...]

That a good mum should be rounded on and metaphorically spat at by those who imagine that not smoking makes them angels of propriety is so painfully ironic it's almost funny. 

As for the publicity-seeking vultures behind Celebrity Mum of the Year stripping her of her previous title, that's the biggest joke of all. 

With this year's short list featuring Natasha Giggs and the still to give birth, Peaches Geldof, Stacey can rest assured that being a decent mum has sod all to do with that prize.

Hooray for this writer from the Belfast Telegraph for acknowledging that good motherhood is a not defined by being risk averse, and for condemning this needless public outcry.


Hat tip to Pat Nurse who undertook some hefty radio work on the story this week.

Understanding 10 per cent

Who knows how to explain a drop in rates in laymen's terms?

Following Jill Pell's study, headlines (and Richard Simpson MSP) advised us that the rate of premature birth dropped 10 per cent because of the smoking ban.

How do the papers come up with a 10 per cent drop? On the face of it you could say that between 65 and 55 the difference is 10, but we are not talking percentages. The figures look at rates per thousand. If the rate had been measured in hundred thousands, the difference between 55 and 65 would mean something different again. With thousands, it appears to me as a lay person that the range is no larger than 1 per cent of the sample, and I can't understand what the fuss is about.

Support for Pell from certain quarters (less from others)

Less than wholehearted support from this quarter.

Support from the great and the good in the Scottish Parliament:

*S4M-02252 Richard Simpson: Smoking Ban Reduces Premature Birth Rate— That the Parliament welcomes the report by the Centre for Population and Health Sciences suggesting that there has been a 10% reduction in the country’s premature birth rate; notes that the report has associated this with the introduction of Scotland’s ban on smoking in public places, which was introduced in 2006; understands that the study was based on data collected over 14 years from more than 700,000 women; notes that the report comes at the same time as information claiming that, since the successful introduction of the smoking ban in public places, there has also been a reduction in hospital admissions arising from acute heart attacks; looks forward to the implementation of the further tobacco control measures that the Parliament has passed to discourage smoking, and believes that significant inequalities remain in the distribution of those still smoking, which it believes to be a major public health challenge for Scotland.

Supported by: Hugh Henry*, Patricia Ferguson*, James Kelly*, Sarah Boyack*, Jackson Carlaw*, Jean Urquhart*, Helen Eadie*, Stewart Maxwell*, John Park*, Malcolm Chisholm*, Anne McTaggart*, Paul Martin*, David Torrance*, Patrick Harvie*, John Mason*

It is surely inaccurate to describe the difference between 55 and 65 premature births per thousand live births as 10 per cent. A decline from 65 to 55 births may have taken place in the period Pell examined but they don't support her case – partly because the drop is already under way before the ban is introduced. This represents a decline in the numbers affected by about one-tenth but Dr Simpson categorically states that the premature birth rate has declined by 10 per cent. (This of course might help to explain how Pell achieved her 17 per cent drop in heart attack admissions.)

Source

This piece from BBC Scotland in 2009 is also relevant because it states that the premature birth rate was increasing up to 2005: a change associated with a growing number of expectant mothers with diabetes. It does not deal with the post-2006 period. It also records the rates in the 1980s as around 54 per 1000, which means that the peak of 62/3 was not typical of the pre-smoking ban premature birth rate. In any case the variation between 54 and 62 per thousand is very small in percentage terms.

Pell's front-cover-of-the BBC premature birth speculation

h/tip Chris Snowdon, Pell now claims a 10 per cent drop in premature births since the smoking ban was implemented in Scotland.

There is no evidence for this (Chris takes apart the figures). Considering that as I write the BBC has given it a home page splash there is surprisingly little in the article to justify all the fuss,

But while their work suggests a link, it is not proof that one thing necessarily causes another. As with all retrospective studies like this, it is impossible to rule out entirely all other factors that might have influenced the finding. 

However, Dr Daniel Mackay and colleagues from the University of Glasgow say their findings "add to the growing evidence of the wide-ranging health benefits of smoke-free legislation" and "lend support" to the adoption of such legislation in countries where it does not currently exist.

Not only do the figures give a nil result, but the reporter acknowledges that even if there had been a result it might not have been explained by the smoking ban. (But the figures show that there was no significant result to corroborate the stated finding.) The report nevertheless reports the researchers claiming this non-result is evidence of a health benefit that should encourage the spread of smoke-free policies. And of course we get this:

[The British Heart Foundation] says the focus should now shift to the effect of smoking in the home and confined spaces, such as cars, especially where children are present.

Well, fancy this research appearing just as another anti-smoking offensive appears to be under way.