JABFM
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Rapid Responses: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Millard, P. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Millard, P. S.
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 19:431 (2006)
© 2006 American Board of Family Medicine


Letter to the Editor

Peter S. Millard, MD, PhD

Family Practice Residency Program
Eastern Maine Medical Center
Bangor, ME

Dr. Hall bases his analysis on observational data that are of questionable validity. The fact that churchgoers live longer than people who do not attend church may very well have nothing to do with churchgoing but may result from uncontrolled confounding.

Observational studies that showed a benefit of exogenous estrogens in postmenopausal women were debunked by the Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Trial.1 The accepted explanation for the discrepancy between the observational findings and the experimental results is that women who took estrogens were systematically different from non-users in ways which resulted in improved outcomes (eg, reduced coronary disease).

Barrett-Connor referred to this as the "healthy user effect."2 The inability to control for the healthy user effect resulted in the biased findings of many observational studies of estrogen use.

Similarly, churchgoers are systematically different from non-churchgoers in ways that are difficult to measure but are likely to result in improved health outcomes that may have nothing to do with churchgoing. Churchgoers are more likely to be employed, have intact families, and are less likely to be homebound by illness or disability. Until the healthy attender effect can be controlled for, it is unwise to attempt to make any inferences about the effect that churchgoing has on health.

References

  1. The Women’s Health Initiative Steering Committee. Effects of conjugated equine estrogen in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy: the Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA 2004; 291: 1701–12.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  2. Barrett-Connor E, Bush TL. Estrogen and coronary heart disease in women. JAMA 1991; 265: 1861–7.[Abstract]





This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Rapid Responses: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Millard, P. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Millard, P. S.


HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS