The Reality Behind Numbers: Why We Should Question the Use of Statistics in Public Discourse

As an active researcher with a strong preference for qualitative research, I have long maintained a healthy scepticism towards the selective use of statistics in public discourse. In recent years, we have seen a growing trend in which numbers and statistics are used to create narratives that do not always align with the reality experienced by individuals on the ground. The announcement of an increase in the number of General Practitioners (GPs) in training—up 67% since 2020

(https://www.dhirubhai.net/posts/stephen-donnelly-9531b0279_updated-cabinet-earlier-this-week-on-the-activity-7240377159083520000-N-4V?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop)

—provides a perfect example of this issue. While it is undoubtedly a positive development that more GPs are entering the field, this statistic alone fails to capture the true state of GP care across the country. It serves as a reminder of how easily numbers can be manipulated to paint a misleadingly optimistic picture.

As Mark Twain famously popularized, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” This quote encapsulates the very issue at hand—the fact that statistics, when used without context or in service of a particular agenda, can be one of the most deceptive forms of communication. They can create an illusion of progress while ignoring the more complex, and often troubling, reality on the ground.

Statistics are an incredibly powerful tool. When used appropriately, they can help identify trends, forecast future developments, and inform policy decisions. However, there is an inherent risk in relying too heavily on quantitative data, particularly when it is used to serve political or institutional agendas. Numbers can be selectively presented, stripped of context, or framed in a way that emphasizes positive developments while downplaying ongoing challenges. This is where qualitative research, which focuses on individual experiences and case studies, plays a crucial role in balancing out the story that numbers alone tell.

Take, for instance, the announcement that GP training places have increased by 67%, from 208 to 347 trainees, and that for every two GPs who retire, three to six new ones are entering practice. This is an undeniably positive statistic that suggests improvements are being made in the provision of GP services across the country. But does this number reflect the true state of healthcare on the ground? Is this surge in GP trainees translating into better care for patients, especially in underserved areas? And, more importantly, are we seeing a qualitative improvement in the nature of the care provided?

While these statistics suggest that access to GPs will improve, real-world experiences paint a different picture. Consider the case of an 83-year-old man who suffered a stroke and is now bedbound. Despite his vulnerable condition, his GP has given notice that he must find another provider within a month and has refused to issue prescriptions for his ongoing care. This incident raises serious questions about the quality of care some GPs are providing and highlights the limitations of relying on numbers alone to gauge the effectiveness of healthcare services.

In this context, the 67% increase in GP trainees rings hollow. Yes, we may have more doctors entering the profession, but what are the standards of care they are being trained to uphold? Are these new GPs equipped to provide patient-centred care, or are they being absorbed into an overstretched system that prioritises efficiency over quality? The man in the aforementioned case is my father-in-law, not some random stranger and he serves as a stark reminder that more GPs do not necessarily equate to better care—especially if those GPs are unable or unwilling to meet the needs of their patients.

Healthcare is a complex system, and complex systems require nuanced analysis. Quantitative data, such as the number of GPs in training, provides one piece of the puzzle, but it does not offer a complete picture. In fact, the focus on such data can sometimes obscure deeper systemic issues, such as geographic disparities in healthcare access, the bureaucratic challenges that overburden healthcare providers, and the varying quality of care between different regions or individual practices.

In my research, I have found that qualitative data—interviews, case studies, and patient narratives—often provide a much richer and more accurate understanding of what is really happening in a system. For example, interviews with patients in rural areas might reveal that despite the increase in GP numbers, access to care remains limited due to long waiting lists or the closure of local practices. A case study might show that new GPs, although well-trained, are struggling to provide the level of care they aspire to because of institutional constraints, such as excessive patient loads or insufficient resources.

It is these qualitative insights that often reveal the underlying issues hidden by seemingly positive statistics.

Another key issue with the use of statistics in public discourse is the lack of context. The claim that the number of GPs in training has increased by 67% is certainly impressive, but it begs several important questions: What was the starting point? How does this compare to the number of GPs who are retiring or leaving the profession for other reasons? Are these new trainees being deployed in areas where GP shortages are most acute? Without this context, the statistic becomes a headline-grabbing figure rather than a meaningful metric of progress.

Moreover, even if the increase in GP trainees does lead to better care in the future, there is still a significant gap between the present reality and the potential future outcome. Patients today are struggling to access care, particularly in certain parts of the country, and the increase in trainees will not provide immediate relief for those who are currently underserved. Statistics like these often give the impression that solutions are already in place, when in reality, they represent only the initial steps towards improvement.

As a researcher who values both quantitative and qualitative methods, I understand that both approaches have their merits and limitations. Quantitative data can help us identify broad trends and patterns, but qualitative data is essential for understanding the lived experiences behind those trends. When we rely too heavily on numbers without considering the human stories behind them, we risk creating a distorted view of reality—one that benefits political or institutional narratives at the expense of the people those systems are supposed to serve.

In the case of the healthcare system, and GP care in particular, it is crucial that we approach statistics with caution and scepticism. The increase in GP trainees is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, but it is not a panacea. We must remain vigilant in questioning whether these numbers truly reflect improvements in care on the ground and continue to push for a healthcare system that prioritises the quality of patient care over the quantity of healthcare providers.

In the end, statistics can tell us a lot, but they do not tell the whole story. It is up to us to ensure that the voices of those experiencing the system firsthand—patients, doctors, and healthcare workers alike—are heard and considered alongside the numbers. Only then can we create a healthcare system that truly serves the needs of all.

?