It might be for statistical purposes. But I think it's daft and I've resist
answering that (I'm not advocating that for others). Perhaps you should have
asked the staff - although in my experience they just say it's the routine.

There are often questions on forms of all kind which seem to be irrelevant,
I've never been taken to task for ignoring them.

The irritating questions are those "required fields" on internet
questionnaires. I've taken to entering my mobile number instead of landline
and if there are other fields I don't want to answer I simply don't bother
with the questionnaire.

Mary

That reminds me of a story published in Medical Economicsmany years ago.  An
obstetrician visiting a new mother noti ced a Vssar alumna magazine on her
nightstand.  To make conversation while he was checking the episiotomy, he
remarked, "I see you went to Vassar."  She replied, "Oh, Doctor, can you
tell that too?"

It could simply be demographic, but I can speculate a couple of other
reasons to ask.

First, it may give the doctor a rough idea for a starting-point approach
to discussion with the patient.

I'm well and amply aware (from my own family) that some people with less
formal education are more truly educated than others with degrees; and
also aware (from working in a University) that there are some real dim
bulbs with PhDs.

Still, playing the odds, it would give the doctor some idea of where to
start in communicating, to be adjusted as s/he gains experience with the
patient.

Second -- and this is more of a stretch -- some diseases & conditions do
seem to be correlated with income or education levels.  It's not a hard
link or a direct causation that would be predictive in an individual
case, but might help the doctor evaluate patients & symptoms in a
probablistic sense.

Ann T.
Remove 'dontsendspam' from address to reply by email

Well, through asking such questions there has been a correlation shown
between prevalence of some diseases and educational level. It may seem
odd, but, why not if it helps with finding the causes of the disease.
Whether or not it is relevant, it's one more thing they can put in their
statistical brew, and no-one can be quite sure it is irrelevant until
they check.

I know in my own work that I have to be pretty damn sure of my proof
before saying that two events are unconnected, the world has a habit of
proving me wrong.

I'm not (and the researchers are not) suggesting that education per se
is a cause of breast cancer, but if it is found that for example, it is
more (or less) prevalent amongst university graduates then they can go
on to research what is different about graduates or their life style
which gives rise to the difference, and so perhaps shed light on the
mechanisms by which cancer starts.

And some of it might just be habit of gathering whatever information is
forthcoming, just in case.  "Old market researchers never die, they are
just broken down by age and sex."

Tim Jackson