- Donald A Redelmeier (dar{at}ices.on.ca), clinician scientist,
- Sheldon M Singh, researcher
- Correspondence to: D A Redelmeier
Abstract
Objective: To determine whether the link between high success and longevity extends to academy award winning screenwriters.
Design: Retrospective cohort analysis.
Participants: All screenwriters ever nominated for an academy award.
Main outcome measures: Life expectancy and all cause mortality.
Results: A total of 850 writers were nominated; the median duration of follow up from birth was 68 years; and 428 writers died. On average, winners were more successful than nominees, as indicated by a 14% longer career (27.7 v 24.2, P=0.004), 34% more total films (23.2 v 17.3, P<0.001), 58% more four star films (4.8 v 3.1, P<0.001), and 62% more nominations (2.1 v 1.3, P<0.001). However, life expectancy was 3.6 years shorter for winners than for nominees (74.1 v 77.7 years, P=0.004), equivalent to a 37% relative increase in death rates (95% confidence interval 10 to 70). After adjustment for year of birth, sex, and other factors, a 35% relative increase in death rates was found (7% to 70%). Additional wins were associated with a 22% relative increase in death rates (3% to 44%). Additional nominations and additional other films in a career otherwise caused no significant increase in death rates.
Conclusion: The link between occupational achievement and longevity is reversed in screenwriters who win academy awards. Doubt is cast on simple biological theories for the survival gradients found for other members of society.
What is already known on this topic
What is already known on this topic High achievement has been associated with decreased all cause mortality for people in many different occupations
Such an association is compatible with behavioural and biological theories for the role of social determinants
What this study adds
What this study adds Screenwriters nominated for an academy award show a paradoxical survival pattern, where greater success is associated with a large decrease in life expectancy
The paradox is not easily explained by talent, prestige, financial earnings, material conditions, reverse causality, measurement error, or simple demographics It might reflect the unusual lifestyles of writers, where success is not linked to exemplary conduct or control; this underscores the importance of behaviour
Footnotes
-
Editorial by Davey Smith
-
Funding DAR was supported by a career scientist award from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the de Souza Chair of the University of Toronto. SMS was supported by the Jane and Howard Jones Bursary of the University of Toronto. These funding sources had no role in the design, conduct, or reporting of this study.
-
Competing interests None declared.
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012