One for the Duh! files?

Every now and again we receive word of a finding from science that makes us stop and scratch our heads... not because the news is surprising but rather because it seems so obvious we wonder why anyone took time (and dollars) to study it.

We squirrel these items away in what we like to refer to as our "Duh!" files. (Others prefer to term these candidates for publication in the Journal of Bloody Obvious Research.)

Here's one just published online in the British Medical Journal: According to a release from the journal, the study found "Employees who take long spells of sick leave more than once in three years are at a higher risk of death than their colleagues who take no such absence."

Really?!

Next they'll be telling us that rock stars live shorter lives, catastrophic hurricanes affect people's ability to sleep, families who eat lots of fast food are more likely to have unhealthful eating habits, or that parents of kids with sleep problems are more likely to be sleepy themselves.

It's easy to poke fun, of course -- there may be good reasons, sometimes, for seemingly obvious reports. Some findings may have to be documented and quantified and waved in the faces of powers that be in order for change to be enacted, even though the whole world might suspect the truth of them. Take the 100-hour weeks with 36-hour shifts that medical residents used to work until residency rules were changed in 2003. It took studies reporting actual harm for those policies to be altered -- but surely one didn't need a medical degree to suspect that judgment might be impaired in a person who'd been on call for 36 hours straight.   

There's more, too, to this British Medical Journal study about workers taking sick leave.  First off, the authors find that medically certified leave for some sicknesses are especially suggestive of an increased risk of death -- notably cardiovascular problems, surgery and psychiatric disorders. (Leave for musculoskeletal disorders didn't lead to increased risk of death.) The authors and some scientists who wrote an accompanying editorial suggest such leaves could be a useful sign for physicians: The doctors could target medical interventions to such people -- though of course, I can't help feeling it would be nice if my doctor already suspected I might need help should I be taking big chunks of time off work for heart trouble.

The study is also just one part of a large, very interesting effort by researchers at University College London to figure out how social status, stress, lifestyle and the mind affect the physical health and longevity of people. To this end, the UCL researchers have been tracking civil servants in London for decades.

Go here to find out more about the Whitehall II study, as it's called. Among the study's findings:

• "The more senior someone is in the employment hierarchy, the longer he or she might be expected to live compared to people in lower employment grades."

(In other words, exactly the opposite of the boss-dropping-dead-from-a-heart-attack myth.)

Also:

• "The combination of high demands and low control at work predicts poor health."

(So it's not so bad for your physical health if you're working round the clock but you're in control -- much worse if you're working around the clock but someone else is calling all the shots.)

And more.

You can download a booklet here that sums up all the findings and makes practical suggestions.  Print it out -- and give your boss a copy while you're at it.

--Rosie Mestel