Hacker News Reader

Comment by gwillen | Hacker News Reader

Indeed not, and I am EXTREMELY skeptical of the claim that birth times are reduced TWO HOURS (!!!) by the addition of art. That's the kind of effect you see in papers that get retracted for outright fraud, let alone dubious and irreproducible studies.

View on HN

Ok, but can you please not use allcaps for emphasis on HN? It's basically yelling. This is in the site guidelines:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

I think this is the paper on the birth time.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003039921...

Unblinded (somewhat unavoidable), informal randomisation, n=26, the sole author is an interior designer with no scientific training. Paper states an "average" difference in birth times of 2.1 hours (not clear if mean or median), no SDs or p-value stated. Published in Optics & Laser Technology for some reason; the editorial board appears to be entirely comprised of engineers.

On the plus side, at the very least the same hospital and hospital rooms were used. I initially assumed they were comparing an expensive, spacious upper-class hospital full of art with a run-down brutalist Medicaid hospital, and conflating sampling bias with causality.

"A screen was designed to hide emergency equipment with the joint aim of reducing women's anxieties and (through visual art) acting as a focal point of attention and distraction during labour, thus diminishing requirements for analgesia. Results demonstrated, in the presence of the screen, a statistically significant shortening of the duration of labour by 2.1h"

Uh, I don't have access to the full article, but was the control hiding the equipment with a blank screen or no screen at all?

Cause if the control was no screen at all, I don't think they were testing what they say they were testing:

"The significant clinical outcomes of this research provide the evidence of the value of integrating visual art into the environment of a labour and delivery room, improving the quality of the maternity service and potentially delivering real cost savings benefits to Hospitals."

Agree... and I'd love to see another control, one that is just "pretty" but is not (considered) art...

Don't discount the placebo effect. Just because you can't see it, just because you can't measure it, don't mean something doesn't exist.

The placebo effect is scientifically recognized. It is real. Let's be mindful not to dismiss it - like it or not.

It does exist but a lot of times regression to the mean is wrongly identified as placebo effect. Its rampant in observational studies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com