New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Watching World Series Causes Drop In Hospital Visits

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


What factors determine whether a medical emergency is truly an emergency? According to a new study, the answer depends on how well your favorite baseball team is doing. A report published in the October issue of the Annals of Emergency Medicine reveals that the number of visits to emergency rooms in Boston-area hospitals was inversely related to how well the Red Sox performed in the 2004 World Series.

Previous studies had suggested a relationship between important sporting events such as the Super Bowl and hospital visits. John S. Brownstein of Children's Hospital in Boston and his colleagues tracked the number of patients in six area emergency rooms during 2004 playoff games involving the Red Sox. During games three and four of the American League Championship Series (ALCS), when the Red Sox were on the verge of being eliminated by the New York Yankees, the number of ER visits were slightly higher than average. But when the Sox started their comeback, hospital visits started to drop off. The researchers determined that there was an inverse relationship between the number of people watching a baseball game, based on Neilsen television ratings, and how busy the ER was. During the most popular games (game seven of the ALCS and game four of the World Series) hospital visits were 15 percent lower than expected based on historical data.

The scientists say that this is the first study to illustrate a direct dose-response relationship between the popularity of a sporting event and decreased use of hospital ERs. Notes co-author Kenneth D. Mandl of Harvard Medical School, "The public health finding here is people use discretion in deciding when to show up in the emergency department."

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe