Bigger Wine Glass = More Wine Consumed. Duh Study Time?

Long-time readers of my blog know that I live for finding Duh Studies. Those are studies that make me wonder how on earth the researchers received approval and funding for certain types of research. I found another one this morning.

Did you know that if you use a bigger wine glass, chances are you will drink more wine? I know. I was shocked too. Just as shocked as I was to learn years ago in nursing school that if we served meals on larger plates, people would want or add more food to these plates.

This new study from the University of Cambridge measured how much wine people bought/drank when they used larger glasses than when they used standard glasses. According to the press release:

Over the course of a 16-week period, the owners of the establishment changed the size of the wine glasses at fortnightly intervals, alternating between the standard (300ml) size, and larger (370ml) and smaller (250 ml) glasses.
The researchers found that the volume of wine purchased daily was 9.4% higher when sold in larger glasses compared to standard-sized glasses. This effect was mainly driven by sales in the bar area, which saw an increase in sales of 14.4%, compared to an 8.2% increase in sales in the restaurant. The findings were inconclusive as to whether sales were different with smaller compared to standard-sized glasses.

Ok, in all fairness, I did not read the study and I do only have this press release to go on, but seriously - is it really big news?

I have to say, I disagree with the researcher's quote here:

"We found that increasing the size of wine glasses, even without increasing the amount of wine, leads people to drink more," says Dr Rachel Pechey from the BHRU at Cambridge. "It's not obvious why this should be the case, but one reason may be that larger glasses change our perceptions of the amount of wine, leading us to drink faster and order more. But it's interesting that we didn't see the opposite effect when we switched to smaller wine glasses."

We do know. We know it's human nature. We see a lot in a small glass and a bit in a large glass, and we unconsciously believe that the amount in the smaller glass is more than in the larger glass.

Here are some earlier Duh Studies I wrote about:

It's Duh Study Time Again
Duh studies, not just for the public
Duh Studies, This Is News?

My interest in Duh Studies goes back to when I first worked as an online editor, and I came across a study that screamed, Bottle Feeding Dangerous For Babies (or something like that). It turns out, that the researcher had two case studies, both eerily similar. The first one involved a woman who boiled some water in a pan to heat up a bottle of formula. She took the freshly boiled pot of water over to her bed. Yes, to her bed. She placed the pan of water, freshly hot boiled water, ON HER BED. She put in the bottle of formula. She then GOT ON THE BED WITH THE BABY. As they were getting comfortable - you guessed it - the pot spilled freshly boiled water on the mum and baby, and baby was severely burned. Conclusion: Bottle feeding is dangerous.

I'm going to go have a cup of coffee in my enormous mug. Seems like I drink so little coffee that way. ;-)

Diseases, Deaths, and the Celebrity Effect

The world loves its celebrities, whether they be from sports, entertainment, or politics, or they're just famous for being famous. The celebrities rake in the money that many mere mortals are willing to pay so they can catch a glimpse of fame. Some of the celebrities embrace this adoration and use it to further causes they believe in, some mock it, and yet others try to live below the radar, avoiding the extra attention sent their way.

The attention focuses on, among other things, how celebrities live their lives, what they eat or don't eat, if they vaccinate or don't vaccinate, and what surgeries or procedures they may have had to keep their youthful look. But what fascinates is me the times when members of the public takes these celebrities as experts.  It's one thing to want to know what someone is wearing or how they decorate their home, but it's another to think that their celebrity makes them an expert on anything other than maybe being a celebrity. Is Gwyneth Paltrow really a nutrition and detox expert, or Jenny McCarthy an expert on vaccinations and autism?

And then there is the subject their health. When a celebrity announces a battle with an illness, their fans take notice and this drives awareness of conditions that may otherwise go unknown or misunderstood. Look at Angelina Jolie, and her decision to have a prophylactic double mastectomy and removal of her ovaries. She did this because she has a genetic mutation that greatly increases her risks of developing those cancers. This action and the publicity resulted in the Angelina effect, with many women with the same gene wondering if they should do the same thing - and experts appeared in all forms of media debating her approach.

Other celebrities who shared their battles with chronic diseases include:

• Selena Gomez:  lupus.
• Charlie Sheen: HIV
• Montel Williams: multiple sclerosis 
• Tom Hanks: type 2 diabetes
• Michael J. Fox: Parkinson's disease
• Jimmy Carter: melanoma

Just last Friday, we lost another celebrity, a world-wide celebrity, to illness: Muhammed Ali. He, too, had Parkinson's disease, but his death was caused by septic shock. Patty Duke died in March from the same cause. (Disclaimer: I am content director for Sepsis Alliance, when sepsis or septic shock is listed as cause of death, it always attracts my attention.)

When celebrities or their families disclose illnesses or causes of death, this starts a conversation about them. How many people, particularly those in the age group who love Selena Gomez, had ever heard of lupus? How many people thought that HIV was still a problem in 2016? Before Michael J. Fox and Muhammed Ali announced they had Parkinson's disease, how many people realized it could affect people so young? And what about the educational benefits that came out from President Carter's announcement that he was undergoing immunotherapy for his cancer? 

I've read a few article comments and social media messages saying that the media shouldn't be writing about or playing up the illnesses after celebrities die, that they should be remembered for their roles in our society. But can't raising awareness of these illnesses be one of those roles? Is using that information taking advantage of the situation?

I believe that if celebrities or their families choose to disclose their health battles, then the idea was to help raise awareness - and that is a good thing. All diseases or conditions that affect our quality of life or that lead to an early death are important. But they don't all have the same amount of air time, of awareness. And if the news of one celebrity with one illness can change things, can help someone go for a diagnosis or maybe not feel so alone, then I think it's a good thing.

Will Prince's Death from a Fentanyl Overdose Change Anything?

To say that the death of Prince a few weeks ago was a shock to the music community would be an understatement. To be honest, I wasn't all that familiar with his music - or so I thought. As I read the ensuing articles and Facebook posts, I came to appreciate the impact this man had on our collective musical soul, a man who was taken much too early.

It's a familiar story, his cause of death - an unintentional drug over dose. In this case, it was the pain killer Fentanyl. Too many people have been killed by unintentional drug overdoses. And every time it's someone famous or influential, there is hand wringing and there are calls for greater control of these potentially deadly medicines, and that things need to change. But what things?

When I worked as a nurse in hospice, Fentanyl was the drug of choice for many of my patients to help relieve the severe pain that end-stage cancer can cause. I saw the difference in my patients before and after they received the medication, misery before, relief after. My mother was on Fentanyl for chronic pain for many years, pain from spinal stenosis. It was the only medication that provided any type of relief and the fact that it was a patch that could last days, not hours, was a huge bonus. But, like many such drugs, there's a dark side to Fentanyl. It is addictive. Very addictive.

So, we have a medication that can help a person live life with less pain and a drug that can destroy a life. Where do we find a balance? And is there a balance?

It's already very difficult for some people with pain to get adequate pain relief. Some doctors are afraid of prescribing such powerful drugs, preferring to err on the side of caution, so they think. So the patients suffer, or look for another doctor. They run the risk of being accused of doctor shopping.

When patients do have a prescription, seeking renewals can be a nightmare; they may be treated like drug-seekers. If these patients present at emergency departments because they are desperate, some staff members don't believe that the pain is real. Some pharmacies don't even carry adequate amounts of the pain killers, if at all.

If we "tighten up" access to these drugs even more, where are those who need the drugs going to get them? Yet, we can't deny the seriousness of the issue of drug abuse. We can't ignore that people are becoming addicted to these drugs and lives are being destroyed because of them.

So, will Prince's death change anything? It's doubtful. If it does, I fear that it will make these medications even harder for people to obtain to relieve their pain. Is there a solution? There has to be. But what?

Old News: Noise in Hospitals Disturbs Patients

If you've ever been a patient in a hospital, you know that hospitals are not where you go to rest. And if you happen to have a room next to a nursing station or the entry to the unit or floor,  you're even worse off because of all the noise.

Even as a young nurse, I was aware that noise was an issue, particularly during the night shifts. I tried to speak at a lower level and not move around the rooms as much if I could avoid it. But, patient care still needed to be done and I found myself often waking patients so I could do certain procedures or give medications. I would feel so bad for the patients who had just finally fallen asleep, only to have me wake them up.

I had my three children at the same hospital, and the first two times, I was placed in a room right across from the nursing station. That experience opened my eyes. I got no rest. People were constantly walking past my room, rolling noisy carts and chatting with others. Some people would be calling up the hallway to colleagues as they asked or answered questions. The phone would ring all day long and staff members of all stripes would gather at the station, particularly at the change of shift. It was N.O.I.S.Y. Even with the door closed, I was disturbed. Night time was quieter, but there was still chatter and the noise of all the call bells that would go off all night long. It was anything but restful. I lucked out with my third child though - I was given the last room at the end of the hall. It was so quiet, it was like I was in a different place altogether.

The thing is, we already know that hospitals aren't restful places and that they're noisy. Researchers have been studying this - although they really just needed to speak to some patients to find out. But at least now, they're taking the noise seriously. There was a study presented at a conference earlier this month, showing how loud an intensive care unit can be, Quiet please in the intensive care unit! As a former ICU nurse, I could relate.

What does this all mean? It's hard to say. Patients are limited in power. They could ask to have doors closed, but they can't do anything about the alarms and the need for healthcare staff to communicate with each other in the halls. They also can't do anything about room placements or if they are near a hub of activity.

Hopefully continued research like this ICU one may change some policies - changing how alarms are used and instituting quiet times, when noisy activities stop and patients are encouraged to rest are a good start. Some facilities are already doing this. We know we need sleep to heal, to get better. The thing is figuring out how to provide it in the hospital environment.