The martyrdom effect : when pain and effort increase prosocial contributions

Most theories of motivation and behavior (and lay intuitions alike) consider pain and effort to be deterrents. In contrast to this widely held view, we provide evidence that the prospect of enduring pain and exerting effort for a prosocial cause can promote contributions to the cause. Specifically, we show that willingness to contribute to a charitable or collective cause increases when the contribution process is expected to be painful and effortful rather than easy and enjoyable. Across five experiments, we document this “martyrdom effect,” show that the observed patterns defy standard economic and psychological accounts, and identify a mediator and moderator of the effect. Experiment 1 showed that people are willing to donate more to charity when they anticipate having to suffer to raise money. Experiment 2 extended these findings to a non-charity laboratory context that involved real money and actual pain. Experiment 3 demonstrated that the martyrdom effect is not the result of an attribute substitution strategy (whereby people use the amount of pain and effort involved in fundraising to determine donation worthiness). Experiment 4 showed that perceptions of meaningfulness partially mediate the martyrdom effect. Finally, Experiment 5 demonstrated that the nature of the prosocial cause moderates the martyrdom effect: the effect is strongest for causes associated with human suffering. We propose that anticipated pain and effort lead people to ascribe greater meaning to their contributions and to the experience of contributing, thereby motivating higher prosocial contributions. We conclude by considering some implications of this puzzling phenomenon. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Ethical Acceptability of Postrandomization Consent in Pragmatic Clinical Trials.

Importance: Pragmatic clinical trials that seek informed consent after randomization (ie, postrandomization consent) are increasingly used, but debate on ethics persists because control arm patients are not specifically informed about the trials and randomization occurs before consent for the trials. The public's attitude toward postrandomization consent trials is unknown, but the way the trials are described could bias people's views. Objectives: To assess the attitudes of the US general public toward postrandomization informed consent for pragmatic trials and to measure potential framing and other factors associated with those attitudes. Design, Setting, and Participants: An online, 2 × 2 experimental survey (fielded between February 23 and April 3, 2018) portraying 4 scenarios of postrandomization informed consent (with prior broad consent for medical record use) was conducted. These scenarios included traditional randomized clinical trial language framing vs alternative framing in a high-stakes trial (ie, survival in leukemia) or low-stakes trial (ie, blood glucose level in diabetes). A total of 3793 individuals invited to participate were part of an existing panel representative of the US general public (GfK KnowledgePanel). Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of participants who would recommend that an ethics review board approve a postrandomization consent pragmatic trial. Results: A total of 2042 of 3739 invitees (54.6%) responded; after exclusion of 38 incomplete surveys, 2004 participants were included in the analysis. Of these, 997 (49.8%) were women, 1440 (71.9%) were white non-Hispanic, 199 (9.9%) were black non-Hispanic, and 233 (11.6%) were Hispanic. Mean (SD) age was 47.5 (17.4) years. Across scenarios, weighted data showed that 75.4% of the participants would recommend approval of the postrandomization consent pragmatic trial, 20.4% would probably not recommend approval, and 4.2% would definitely not recommend approval. Approval was not sensitive to framing language (traditional vs new framing in high-stakes scenario, 74.3% vs 76.8%, P = .40; in low-stakes scenario, 77.7% vs 72.9%, P = .10) or to the stakes (low vs high stakes in traditional framing, 77.7% vs 74.3%, P = .25; in new framing, 72.9% vs 76.8%, P = .18). Better understanding of the postrandomization consent design was associated with higher rate of approval (78.1% vs 65.0%, P = .002 for high-stakes scenario; 77.2% vs 64.9%, P = .004 for low-stakes scenario), especially among those with less education. However, opinions about personal involvement in the control arm were more cautious (range depending on scenario, 45.6%-59.7%) and sensitive to stakes but not to framing. Conclusions and Relevance: The public's generally high rate of approval of the ethics of postrandomization informed consent for pragmatic trial designs does not appear to be affected by whether postrandomization consent design is framed using traditional randomized clinical trial terminology, regardless of the stakes of the trial. Promoting better understanding of the design may increase its acceptance by the public

Improving Ethical Review of Research Involving Incentives for Health Promotion

Alex London and colleagues propose new ethical frameworks for evaluating the risks associated with research in which financial or other incentives are used to promote healthy behavior

Grand Challenges in Global Health: Community Engagement in Research in Developing Countries

The authors argue that there have been few systematic attempts to determine the effectiveness of community engagement in research

Implicit Review Instrument to Evaluate Quality of Care Delivered by Physicians to Children in Emergency Departments

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144238/1/hesr12800_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144238/2/hesr12800.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144238/3/hesr12800-sup-0001-AppendixSA1.pd

Cancer patients’ respect experiences in relation to perceived communication behaviours from hospital staff: analysis of the 2012-2013 National Cancer Patient Experience Survey

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.DOI 10.1007/s00520-015-2973-5Purpose: Respect experiences are poorly understood despite respect being central to professionalism in healthcare and patient well-being, and needed for optimal patient care. This study explores which patient-perceived communication behaviours from hospital staff contribute most to cancer patients’ respect experiences and account for variation in their experience by socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. Methods: Secondary analysis of data from the 2012-2013 National Cancer Patient Experience Survey of 45191 patients with a primary cancer diagnosis treated in English National Health Service trusts providing adult acute cancer services who provided data on experienced respect and dignity. Results: Both autonomy-supportive and caring/emotionally sensitive behaviours were associated with reported respect, although the latter showed stronger associations and accounted for most differences in reports of respect between patient groups. Differences in respect were found by gender, race/ethnicity, age, the presence of long-standing conditions, treatment response, time since first treated for cancer (p<.001), employment and type of cancer (p<.05). Conclusions: The study questions the tendency to conceptualise respect primarily in terms of autonomy-supportive behaviours and shows the relative contribution of autonomy-supportive and caring/emotionally sensitive behaviours in explaining disparities in respect experiences. More attention should be paid to affective communication behaviours from hospital staff to reduce disparities in respect experiences

Patientâ level Factors and the Quality of Care Delivered in Pediatric Emergency Departments

ObjectiveQuality of care delivered to adult patients in the emergency department (ED) is often associated with demographic and clinical factors such as a patient’s race/ethnicity and insurance status. We sought to determine whether the quality of care delivered to children in the ED was associated with a variety of patientâ level factors.MethodsThis was a retrospective, observational cohort study. Pediatric patients (<18 years) who received care between January 2011 and December 2011 at one of 12 EDs participating in the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) were included. We analyzed demographic factors (including age, sex, and payment source) and clinical factors (including triage, chief complaint, and severity of illness). We measured quality of care using a previously validated implicit review instrument using chart review with a summary score that ranged from 5 to 35. We examined associations between demographic and clinical factors and quality of care using a hierarchical multivariable linear regression model with hospital site as a random effect.ResultsIn the multivariable model, among the 620 ED encounters reviewed, we did not find any association between patient age, sex, race/ethnicity, and payment source and the quality of care delivered. However, we did find that some chief complaint categories were significantly associated with lower than average quality of care, including fever (â 0.65 points in quality, 95% confidence interval [CI] = â 1.24 to â 0.06) and upper respiratory symptoms (â 0.68 points in quality, 95% CI = â 1.30 to â 0.07).ConclusionWe found that quality of ED care delivered to children among a cohort of 12 EDs participating in the PECARN was high and did not differ by patient age, sex, race/ethnicity, and payment source, but did vary by the presenting chief complaint.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142981/1/acem13347_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142981/2/acem13347-sup-0001-DataSupplementS1.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142981/3/acem13347.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142981/4/acem13347-sup-0002-DataSupplementS2.pd

Unemployment Insurance and Low-Educated Single Working Mothers Before and After Welfare Reform

Using the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), a nationally representative, longitudinal survey, this study examines changing levels of Unemployment Insurance (UI) eligibility and benefit receipt among working low-educated single mothers, 1990–2005. It also examines changing participation in cash welfare and the Food Stamp Program (FSP). Relative to single childless women, there has been no increase in UI benefit receipt among single mothers entering a spell of unemployment in the postreform period, even though single mothers have increased their relative rates of UI eligibility. Because of declining cash assistance receipt, UI became a more common income support than cash assistance for this population during the period 2001–2005. Furthermore, the probability of accessing FSP for low-educated single mothers entering a spell of unemployment increased in the years 2001–2005. As a result, the proportion of this population accessing benefits from one or more of these programs remained virtually unchanged across the study period

Institutional review board challenges related to community-based participatory research on human exposure to environmental toxins: A case study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We report on the challenges of obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) coverage for a community-based participatory research (CBPR) environmental justice project, which involved reporting biomonitoring and household exposure results to participants, and included lay participation in research.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We draw on our experiences guiding a multi-partner CBPR project through university and state Institutional Review Board reviews, and other CBPR colleagues' written accounts and conference presentations and discussions. We also interviewed academics involved in CBPR to learn of their challenges with Institutional Review Boards.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found that Institutional Review Boards are generally unfamiliar with CBPR, reluctant to oversee community partners, and resistant to ongoing researcher-participant interaction. Institutional Review Boards sometimes unintentionally violate the very principles of beneficence and justice which they are supposed to uphold. For example, some Institutional Review Boards refuse to allow report-back of individual data to participants, which contradicts the CBPR principles that guide a growing number of projects. This causes significant delays and may divert research and dissemination efforts. Our extensive education of our university Institutional Review Board convinced them to provide human subjects protection coverage for two community-based organizations in our partnership.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>IRBs and funders should develop clear, routine review guidelines that respect the unique qualities of CBPR, while researchers and community partners can educate IRB staff and board members about the objectives, ethical frameworks, and research methods of CBPR. These strategies can better protect research participants from the harm of unnecessary delays and exclusion from the research process, while facilitating the ethical communication of study results to participants and communities.</p