Future supply and demand of podiatric physicians

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Thanks for sharing...very interesting 🙂
 
Check out the supplementary tables at the end of the report to see the number of pods per state, the mean hourly wage, and the top 300 codes.
 
It's a nice report. Figures 8 and 9 and the conclusions they drew from them aren't statistically sound, but otherwise it was a good read.
 
Looking at these figures made me curious, where would you guys prefer to practice?
 
Please explain.

They extrapolated information based on the best fit line, but the chi squared tests clearly showed little to no correlation with R^2 values that are extremely small. Just look at the graphs without the best fit line or colors, and you'll realize that what they are suggesting isn't really all that accurate.
 
"Figure 8 includes a polynomial regression line that shows a relation between admissions and enrollment different that would be expected under “normal” circumstances."

The R^2 is .0778. That means that 92.22% of the data is not explained by that correlation... doesn't sound too convincing to me.
 
"Figure 8 includes a polynomial regression line that shows a relation between admissions and enrollment different that would be expected under "normal" circumstances."

The R^2 is .0778. That means that 92.22% of the data is not explained by that correlation... doesn't sound too convincing to me.

Check and mate.
 
"Figure 8 includes a polynomial regression line that shows a relation between admissions and enrollment different that would be expected under “normal” circumstances."

The R^2 is .0778. That means that 92.22% of the data is not explained by that correlation... doesn't sound too convincing to me.

Somebody didn't sleep through Statistics...😀
 
Not statistically robust as eluded to by a few erudite podiatric medical students.

Given that it's performed/funded by the APMA, one has to question the veracity of the results and the motives involved going into a recession 2007 study, for consumption into 2008 which of course, is a severe recession; this document then provided the "proof" to elicit students to schools even though the stats are not sound nor accurate.

Figures lie, liars figure.
 
"Figure 8 includes a polynomial regression line that shows a relation between admissions and enrollment different that would be expected under “normal” circumstances."

The R^2 is .0778. That means that 92.22% of the data is not explained by that correlation... doesn't sound too convincing to me.

What they said. :corny:
 
Looking at these figures made me curious, where would you guys prefer to practice?

In the South, preferably on the coast and in a favorable state. SC would be my first choice, but doesn't seem too great for pods, so maybe NC, GA or FL. Southern VA is always an option as well.
 
Not statistically robust as eluded to by a few erudite podiatric medical students.

Given that it's performed/funded by the APMA, one has to question the veracity of the results and the motives involved going into a recession 2007 study, for consumption into 2008 which of course, is a severe recession; this document then provided the "proof" to elicit students to schools even though the stats are not sound nor accurate.

Figures lie, liars figure.

I mean, just because they stipulated some incorrect data from charts, the data on the charts is probably accurate (if the chart data was falsified, they would have done a better job of trending it accordingly). The data still suggests that there is a huge need for podiatrists, podiatrists make a lot of money, and its fairly easy to get into podiatry school.

They just had a crazy notion that between two sets of years enrollment numbers were different, and that the admission rate was trending based on that number. So those figures are w/e, but the rest of the report (like i said above) is actually a pretty good read.
 
Top Bottom