Sailing without a lookout: cuts to the Office for National Statistics
BMJ 2013; 347 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f6739 (Published 13 November 2013) Cite this as: BMJ 2013;347:f6739
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
In his article protesting against proposed cuts to Office for National Statistics outputs, Nigel Hawkes argues that statistics are the “lifeblood” of policy. He’s right, of course, but it is more than just policy that will suffer if we lose the data in question. Ultimately it will be people. For example, one of the outputs at risk – 1- and 5-year cancer survival by age for England - provides Macmillan Cancer Support with rich information not otherwise available on 21 cancer types that informs our service partnerships with the NHS, our patient information publications and our influencing work. We use the data to ensure that sufficient incentives are in place for NHS commissioners to invest in services and improve outcomes for all types of cancer, including rarer cancers. There is a risk that, if these data are not available, we will have no way of knowing if efforts to reduce inequalities in cancer survival are successful.
Also at risk are the General Lifestyle Reports, which have provided comprehensive annual data on range of lifestyle habits across Great Britain since 1971. There is increasing evidence that lifestyle changes can reduce the risk of recurrence for cancer survivors and the impact of side effects of treatment. Lifestyle data can also help us better understand reasons behind differences in cancer incidence and mortality rates in Great Britain compared to other countries. The loss of the General Lifestyle Reports would significantly limit our ability to monitor lifestyle trends over time and between nations.
We need cancer data, and data to better understand health and lifestyle behaviours, to ensure we fully understand the needs, experiences and outcomes of people with cancer. We urge the Government and the Office of National Statistics to look beyond short-term savings and consider the full impact of the proposed cuts. Hawkes says the loss of this vital survey data would amount to cultural vandalism of “the most damaging kind”. The potential damage to our understanding of the health of our nation is even more concerning.
Competing interests: I am employed by Macmillan Cancer Support as director of policy and research, and in November 2012 pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly paid for my travel from Boston, US to New York and three nights’ accommodation in New York plus an honorarium of $4,000 (US dollars) paid to Macmillan to attend and participate in the ‘PACE Global Council.
Re: Sailing without a lookout: cuts to the Office for National Statistics
I don't quite know how I missed this article until now, but he is so right. We've been here before of course. Whenever NHS boundaries are changed, whenever coding is fiddled with, and whenever data collection is reviewed, the baby is thrown out with the bathwater.
Only cancer registrations, to record incidence, and cancer deaths, to compare incidence with mortality have escaped, until now. Started in 1939 and continued by the GRO, the OPCS, and now the ONS, if that's reduced or discarded, there's not much left to see how you're doing, over time, or internationally.
Competing interests: No competing interests