You don't see many papers on leadership in public health so this is worth checking out. The methodology is interesting too - not pontification without evidence (the favoured approach of the airport bestsellers).
Roger Federer is, apparently a Goat - Greatest Of All Time. Which doctor is the Foal - most famous of all: someone that everyone in health has heard of? (okay so the acronym doesn't quite work, but don't sweat the small stuff - it just gives you ulcers.)
A massive piece of research from Scotland (full of interesting detail) confirms ongoing validity of the Apgar score as a predictor of outcome. What's interesting about the score is how simple (crude?) it is: there are so many reasons why it shouldn't work. But it does because Virginia knew her stuff - she chose the measures well. And by keeping it really simple, she ensured that everyone could - and would - use it. Genius.
Technically Apgar's score is, I believe (not 100% sure), an improper linear model. Dawes wrote about 'the robust beauty of improper priors'. The basic argument is that a simple scoring system outperforms 'intuition' BUT the score items must be chosen by people who have thought deeply and experienced widely. Scoring systems chosen by Mickey Mouse result in awful decisions, and I've seen plenty of those.
I've never thought of hair as a public health issue perhaps because I have so little of it*. How wrong can you be? It seems we need to add hair salons to the list of partners in our efforts at health improvement.
* on second thoughts bald + sunshine = cancer. This is starting to ramify...
The other day I metnioned a difference of opinion in the USA between the USPSTF and Medicare on the question of screening for lung cancer. Here is an economic evaluation. Don't just go for the headline result - the details of the evaluation are worth reading. It's full of economic concepts such as perspective, discounting, time horizon etc etc .