the even stranger thing is that, based on their data, those identified as having financial barriers were NOT statistically significantly more likely to be poor.
THAT is an interesting conclusion. But it makes the entire study look poorly done (which it was) and so the authors went with describing a non-significant and totally obvious and not useful trend as opposed to doing good research.
Yay! chinese food! any word on when Zingerman's might open up their Mexican place? And do you or Kitchen Chick know of ANYWHERE that serves real italian ices? Not ice cream. Not gelato. Not sorbetto. Real italian ices. Preferably in a flimsy paper cup. Silvio said the closest place he knew was in Chicago which was not helpful.
The research *could* have found that being single, or a single parent, or some other logistical/life structure issue posed a bigger barrier to care. Badly done research covered up with obiousness to keep it from being slammed is utterly deserving of a stern scolding.
There was one I helped faculty research and shred in rebuttal that dealt with changes in neuroanatomy in schizophrenics on medication and had the comparrison group be non-medicated non-schizophrenics. They had about a third of the article talking in circles to discount the possibility that the differences were from the medications rather than include a control pool of non-schizophrenics who for other reasons were using similar medications. Later research showed the difference they were finding was in fact pharm not path.