Do we become more cautious for others when large amounts of money are at stake?

A considerable proportion of financial decisions are made by agents acting on behalf of other people. Although people are more cautious for others when making medical decisions, this does not seem to be the case for economic decisions. However, studies with large amounts of money are particularly absent from the literature, which precludes a clear comparison to studies in the medical domain. To address this gap, we investigated the effect of outcome magnitude in two experiments where participants made choices between safe and risky options. Decision-makers were not more cautious for others over large amounts. In fact, risk-taking was accentuated for large amounts in the gain domain. We did not find self-other differences in the loss domain for either outcome magnitude. This suggests that the caution observed in medical decisions does not replicate in financial decisions with large amounts, or at least not in the same way. These results echo the concerns that have been raised about excessive risk-taking by financial agents

Registered Replication Report: Rand, Greene, and Nowak (2012)

In an anonymous 4-person economic game, participants contributed more money to a common project (i.e., cooperated) when required to decide quickly than when forced to delay their decision (Rand, Greene & Nowak, 2012), a pattern consistent with the social heuristics hypothesis proposed by Rand and colleagues. The results of studies using time pressure have been mixed, with some replication attempts observing similar patterns (e.g., Rand et al., 2014) and others observing null effects (e.g., Tinghög et al., 2013; Verkoeijen & Bouwmeester, 2014). This Registered Replication Report (RRR) assessed the size and variability of the effect of time pressure on cooperative decisions by combining 21 separate, preregistered replications of the critical conditions from Study 7 of the original article (Rand et al., 2012). The primary planned analysis used data from all participants who were randomly assigned to conditions and who met the protocol inclusion criteria (an intent-to-treat approach that included the 65.9% of participants in the time-pressure condition and 7.5% in the forced-delay condition who did not adhere to the time constraints), and we observed a difference in contributions of −0.37 percentage points compared with an 8.6 percentage point difference calculated from the original data. Analyzing the data as the original article did, including data only for participants who complied with the time constraints, the RRR observed a 10.37 percentage point difference in contributions compared with a 15.31 percentage point difference in the original study. In combination, the results of the intent-to-treat analysis and the compliant-only analysis are consistent with the presence of selection biases and the absence of a causal effect of time pressure on cooperation

International development of a patient-centered core outcome set for assessing health-related quality of life in metastatic breast cancer patients

Purpose For patients living with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), achieving best possible health-related quality of life, along with maximizing survival, is vital. Yet, we have no systemic way to determine if we achieve these goals. A Core Outcome Set (COS) that allows standardized measurement of outcomes important to patients, but also promotes discussing these outcomes during clinical encounters, is long overdue. Methods An international expert group (EG) of patient advocates, researchers, medical specialists, nurse specialists, and pharmaceutical industry representatives (n = 17) reviewed a list of relevant outcomes retrieved from the literature. A broader group (n = 141: patients/patient advocates (n = 45), health care professionals/researchers (n = 64), pharmaceutical industry representatives (n = 28), and health authority representatives (n = 4)) participated in a modified Delphi procedure, scoring the relevance of outcomes in two survey rounds. The EG finalized the COS in a consensus meeting. Results The final MBC COS includes 101 variables about: (1) health-related quality of life (HRQoL, n = 26) and adverse events (n = 24); (2) baseline patient characteristics (n = 9); and (3) clinical variables (n = 42). Many outcome that cover aspects of HRQoL relevant to MBC patients are included, e.g. daily functioning (including ability to work), psychosocial/emotional functioning, sexual functioning, and relationship with the medical team. Conclusion The COS developed in this study contains important administrative data, clinical records, and clinician-reported measures that captures the impact of cancer. The COS is important for standardization of clinical research and implementation in daily practice and has received accreditation by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM)

Educational preparation of nurses caring for older people with cancer: an international perspective

ObjectivesTo review the education available in Europe and the USA for nurses caring for older people with cancer.Data sourcesNursing literature, published guidelines, and professional nursing organizations websites:ConclusionThe educational needs of nurses caring for older cancer patients have not been well defined to date, resulting in a mixed international picture of preparation.Implication for nursing practiceAs the number of older people with cancer grows, the resulting complexities of patient and family care needs have significant implications for the role of nursing