Verstand op Veilig: de waarde van publieke kennisinstellingen voor de veiligheid van Nederland

Kennisinstellingen met een taak op het gebied van publieke veiligheid hebben de afgelopen jaren allerlei afgeleide activiteiten ontwikkeld. Dit leidt de aandacht af van hun kerntaken. Expertise waar weinig vraag naar is, dreigt te verdwijnen. De aandacht voor lange termijn-vraagstukken neemt af. Dat concludeert het Rathenau Instituut in het rapport “Verstand op Veilig”, over het KNMI, RIKILT, NFI en het NVI

People’s understanding of verbal risk descriptors in patient information leaflets : a cross-sectional national survey of 18- to 65-year-olds in England

Introduction Evidence suggests the current verbal risk descriptors used to communicate side effect risk in patient information leaflets (PILs) are overestimated. Objectives The aim was to establish how people understand the verbal risk descriptors recommended for use in PILs by the European Commission (EC), and alternative verbal risk descriptors, in the context of mild and severe side effects. Methods A cross-sectional online survey was carried out by a market research company recruiting participants aged between 18 and 65 years living in England. Data were collected between 18 March and 1 April 2016. Participants were given a hypothetical scenario regarding the risk of mild or severe medication side effects and asked to estimate how many out of 10,000 people would be affected for each of the verbal risk descriptors being tested. Results A total of 1003 participants were included in the final sample. The risks conveyed by the EC recommended verbal risk descriptors were greatly overestimated by participants. Two distinct distributions were apparent for participant estimates of side effect risks: those for ‘high risk’ verbal descriptors (e.g. ‘common’, ‘likely’, ‘high chance’) and those for ‘low risk’ verbal descriptors (e.g. ‘uncommon’, ‘unlikely’, ‘low chance’). Within these two groups, the distributions were near to identical regardless of what adverb (e.g. very, high, fair) or adjective (e.g. common, likely, chance) was used. The EC recommended verbal risk descriptors were more likely to be understood in accordance with their intended meanings when describing severe side effects. Very few demographic or psychological factors were consistently associated with how well participants understood the EC recommended verbal risk descriptors. Discussion The current verbal risk descriptors used in PILs are ineffective at best and misleading at worst. Discontinuing the use of verbal risk descriptors would limit the likelihood of people overestimating the risk of side effects

Radiologist experience and CT examination quality determine metastasis detection in patients with esophageal or gastric cardia cancer

We aimed to separate the influence of radiologist experience from that of CT quality in the evaluation of CT examinations of patients with esophageal or gastric cardia cancer. Two radiologists from referral centers ('expert radiologists') and six radiologists from regional non-referral centers ('non-expert radiologists') performed 240 evaluations of 72 CT examinations of patients diagnosed with esophageal or gastric cardia cancer between 1994 and 2003. We used conditional logistic regression analysis to calculate odds ratios (OR) for the likelihood of a correct diagnosis. Expert radiologists made a correct diagnosis of the presence or absence of distant metastases according to the gold standard almost three times more frequently (OR 2.

Searching for Community and Safety: Evaluating Common Information Shared in Online Ex-Vaxxer Communities

This study examines a collection of artifacts passed on from some closed Facebook groups of anti-vaxxers. The study conducted a thematic analysis to determine whether or not the group is a community of practice, evaluate and categorize the types of information shared in these groups, and determine the sources of over 1,100 links across two compiled documents to address a series of questions related to claims of ex-vaxxers when compared to anti-vaxxers and the types of data commonly referenced. Findings indicated that ex-vaxxers and anti-vaxxers have separate and distinct claims, abstracts are the most commonly shared scholarly document, and select information is most often taken out of context. This data set can be analyzed for valence and language use in future studies. The purpose of this study is to evaluate information shared in among anti- and ex-vaxxer parents. This study does not seek to validate a specific position or point of view, nor does the researcher want to explore or determine correctness of beliefs

Changes in perception of treatment efficacy are associated to the magnitude of the nocebo effect and to personality traits

The nocebo effect in motor performance consists in a reduction of force and increase of fatigue following the application of an inert treatment that the recipient believes to be effective. This effect is variable across individuals and it is usually stronger if conditioning -exposure to the active effect of the treatment- precedes a test session, in which the treatment is inert. In the current explorative study we used a conditioning procedure to investigate whether subjective perception of treatment effectiveness changes between the conditioning and the test session and whether this change is related to dispositional traits and to the nocebo-induced reduction of force. Results showed that 56.1% of participants perceived the treatment as more effective in the test than in the conditioning session, had a more pronounced reduction of force, felt more effort and sense of weakness and were characterized by lower levels of optimism and higher anxiety traits compared to the other 43.9% of participants, who conversely perceived the treatment as less effective in the test session than in the conditioning. These findings highlight for the first time a link between changes in perception of treatment effectiveness, personality traits and the magnitude of the nocebo response in motor performance