Strategies for minimising the whole of life cycle cost of reinforced concrete bridge exposed to aggressive environments

n design of bridge structures, it is common to adopt a 100 year design life. However, analysis of a number of case study bridges in Australia has indicated that the actual design life can be significantly reduced due to premature deterioration resulting from exposure to aggressive environments. A closer analysis of the cost of rehabilitation of these structures has raised some interesting questions. What would be the real service life of a bridge exposed to certain aggressive environments? What is the strategy of conducting bridge rehabilitation? And what are the life cycle costs associated with rehabilitation? A research project funded by the CRC for Construction Innovation in Australia is aimed at addressing these issues. This paper presents a concept map for assisting decision makers to appropriately choose the best treatment for bridge rehabilitation affected by premature deterioration through exposure to aggressive environments in Australia. The decision analysis is referred to a whole of life cycle cost analysis by considering appropriate elements of bridge rehabilitation costs. In addition, the results of bridges inspections in Queensland are presented

Evaluation of distress mechanisms in bridges exposed to aggressive environments.

There are about 2500 bridges in Queensland, Australia. Majority of these structures require significant repairs around the halfway mark of their design life with probably 1% or less reaching a 100 year design life. (Carse, 2005). This is due to the fact that bridges constructed in aggressive environments such as the coastal regions experience accelerated deterioration. As a result, maintaining the service delivery of these assets has become one of the important issues for the Queensland Department of Main Roads (QDMR).

A discrete-trial approach to the functional analysis of aggressive behaviour in two boys with autism

Intervention to reduce challenging behaviour may be enhanced when based on a prior functional analysis. The present study describes a discrete-trial approach for the functional analysis of aggressive behaviour in two boys with autism. Twenty brief assessment trials were conducted in the classroom by the teacher under each of three conditions (i.e., attention, task and tangible). The results showed a clear pattern to each child's aggressive behaviour and suggested logical intervention strategies, although the study is limited because it involved only two children. The discrete-trial approach would appear to represent a practical and ecologically valid technique for conducting a functional analysis of challenging behaviour in applied settings

Interventions for preventing and managing aggressive patients admitted to an acute hospital setting: A systematic review

Background: Violence in health care has been widely reported and health care workers, particularly nurses in acute care settings, are ill-equipped to manage patients who exhibit aggressive traits. Aim: The aim of this systematic review was to establish best practice in the prevention and management of aggressive behaviours in patients admitted to acute hospital settings. Data Sources: An extensive search of the major databases was conducted from 1990 to 2007. The search included published and unpublished studies and papers in English. Review Methods: This review considered any quantitative research study design that evaluated the effectiveness of interventions in the prevention and management of patients who exhibit aggressive behaviours in an acute hospital setting. Each included study was quality assessed by two independent reviewers and data were extracted using the relevant tools developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Results: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The evidence identified from the studies includes: the benefit of education and training of acute care nurses in aggression management techniques; use of “as required” medications is effective in minimising harm to patients and staff; and that specific interventions such as physical restraint may play a role in managing aggressive behaviours from patients in the acute care setting. Conclusions: This review makes several recommendations for the prevention and management of aggressive behaviours in acute hospital patients. However, due to the lack of high-quality studies conducted in the acute care setting there is huge scope for future research in this area.

‘You’re a bad driver but I just made a mistake’ : attribution differences between the ‘victims’ and ‘perpetrators’ of scenario-based aggressive driving incidents

Driver aggression is an increasing concern for motorists, with some research suggesting that drivers who behave aggressively perceive their actions as justified by the poor driving of others. Thus attributions may play an important role in understanding driver aggression. A convenience sample of 193 drivers (aged 17-36) randomly assigned to two separate roles (‘perpetrators’ and ‘victims’) responded to eight scenarios of driver aggression. Drivers also completed the Aggression Questionnaire and Driving Anger Scale. Consistent with the actor-observer bias, ‘victims’ (or recipients) in this study were significantly more likely than ‘perpetrators’ (or instigators) to endorse inadequacies in the instigator’s driving skills as the cause of driver aggression. Instigators were significantly more likely attribute the depicted behaviours to external but temporary causes (lapses in judgement or errors) rather than stable causes. This suggests that instigators recognised drivers as responsible for driving aggressively but downplayed this somewhat in comparison to ‘victims’/recipients. Recipients and instigators agreed that the behaviours were examples of aggressive driving but instigators appeared to focus on the degree of intentionality of the driver in making their assessments while recipients appeared to focus on the safety implications. Contrary to expectations, instigators gave mean ratings of the emotional impact of driving aggression on recipients that were higher in all cases than the mean ratings given by the recipients. Drivers appear to perceive aggressive behaviours as modifiable, with the implication that interventions could appeal to drivers’ sense of self-efficacy to suggest strategies for overcoming plausible and modifiable attributions (e.g. lapses in judgement; errors) underpinning behaviours perceived as aggressive.

The psychosocial factors influencing aggressive driving behaviour

Many drivers in highly motorised countries believe that aggressive driving is increasing. While the prevalence of the behaviour is difficult to reliably identify, the consequences of on-road aggression can be severe, with extreme cases resulting in property damage, injury and even death. This research program was undertaken to explore the nature of aggressive driving from within the framework of relevant psychological theory in order to enhance our understanding of the behaviour and to inform the development of relevant interventions. To guide the research a provisional ‘working’ definition of aggressive driving was proposed encapsulating the recurrent characteristics of the behaviour cited in the literature. The definition was: “aggressive driving is any on-road behaviour adopted by a driver that is intended to cause physical or psychological harm to another road user and is associated with feelings of frustration, anger or threat”. Two main theoretical perspectives informed the program of research. The first was Shinar’s (1998) frustration-aggression model, which identifies both the person-related and situational characteristics that contribute to aggressive driving, as well as proposing that aggressive behaviours can serve either an ‘instrumental’ or ‘hostile’ function. The second main perspective was Anderson and Bushman’s (2002) General Aggression Model. In contrast to Shinar’s model, the General Aggression Model reflects a broader perspective on human aggression that facilitates a more comprehensive examination of the emotional and cognitive aspects of aggressive behaviour. Study One (n = 48) examined aggressive driving behaviour from the perspective of young drivers as an at-risk group and involved conducting six focus groups, with eight participants in each. Qualitative analyses identified multiple situational and person-related factors that contribute to on-road aggression. Consistent with human aggression theory, examination of self-reported experiences of aggressive driving identified key psychological elements and processes that are experienced during on-road aggression. Participants cited several emotions experienced during an on-road incident: annoyance, frustration, anger, threat and excitement. Findings also suggest that off-road generated stress may transfer to the on-road environment, at times having severe consequences including crash involvement. Young drivers also appeared quick to experience negative attributions about the other driver, some having additional thoughts of taking action. Additionally, the results showed little difference between males and females in the severity of behavioural responses they were prepared to adopt, although females appeared more likely to displace their negative emotions. Following the self-reported on-road incident, evidence was also found of a post-event influence, with females being more likely to experience ongoing emotional effects after the event. This finding was evidenced by ruminating thoughts or distraction from tasks. However, the impact of such a post-event influence on later behaviours or interpersonal interactions appears to be minimal. Study Two involved the quantitative analysis of n = 926 surveys completed by a wide age range of drivers from across Queensland. The study aimed to explore the relationships between the theoretical components of aggressive driving that were identified in the literature review, and refined based on the findings of Study One. Regression analyses were used to examine participant emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses to two differing on-road scenarios whilst exploring the proposed theoretical framework. A number of socio-demographic, state and trait person-related variables such as age, pre-study emotions, trait aggression and problem-solving style were found to predict the likelihood of a negative emotional response such as frustration, anger, perceived threat, negative attributions and the likelihood of adopting either an instrumental or hostile behaviour in response to Scenarios One and Two. Complex relationships were found to exist between the variables, however, they were interpretable based on the literature review findings. Factor analysis revealed evidence supporting Shinar’s (1998) dichotomous description of on-road aggressive behaviours as being instrumental or hostile. The second stage of Study Two used logistic regression to examine the factors that predicted the potentially hostile aggressive drivers (n = 88) within the sample. These drivers were those who indicated a preparedness to engage in direct acts of interpersonal aggression on the road. Young, male drivers 17–24 years of age were more likely to be classified as potentially hostile aggressive drivers. Young drivers (17–24 years) also scored significantly higher than other drivers on all subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) and on the ‘negative problem orientation’ and ‘impulsive careless style’ subscales of the Social Problem Solving Inventory – Revised (D’Zurilla, Nezu & Maydeu-Olivares, 2002). The potentially hostile aggressive drivers were also significantly more likely to engage in speeding and drink/drug driving behaviour. With regard to the emotional, cognitive and behavioural variables examined, the potentially hostile aggressive driver group also scored significantly higher than the ‘other driver’ group on most variables examined in the proposed theoretical framework. The variables contained in the framework of aggressive driving reliably distinguished potentially hostile aggressive drivers from other drivers (Nagalkerke R2 = .39). Study Three used a case study approach to conduct an in-depth examination of the psychosocial characteristics of n = 10 (9 males and 1 female) self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers. The self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers were aged 24–55 years of age. A large proportion of these drivers reported a Year 10 education or better and average–above average incomes. As a group, the drivers reported committing a number of speeding and unlicensed driving offences in the past three years and extensive histories of violations outside of this period. Considerable evidence was also found of exposure to a range of developmental risk factors for aggression that may have contributed to the driver’s on-road expression of aggression. These drivers scored significantly higher on the Aggression Questionnaire subscales and Social Problem Solving Inventory Revised subscales, ‘negative problem orientation’ and ‘impulsive/careless style’, than the general sample of drivers included in Study Two. The hostile aggressive driver also scored significantly higher on the Barrett Impulsivity Scale – 11 (Patton, Stanford & Barratt, 1995) measure of impulsivity than a male ‘inmate’, or female ‘general psychiatric’ comparison group. Using the Carlson Psychological Survey (Carlson, 1982), the self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers scored equal or higher scores than the comparison group of incarcerated individuals on the subscale measures of chemical abuse, thought disturbance, anti-social tendencies and self-depreciation. Using the Carlson Psychological Survey personality profiles, seven participants were profiled ‘markedly anti-social’, two were profiled ‘negative-explosive’ and one was profiled as ‘self-centred’. Qualitative analysis of the ten case study self-reports of on-road hostile aggression revealed a similar range of on-road situational factors to those identified in the literature review and Study One. Six of the case studies reported off-road generated stress that they believed contributed to the episodes of aggressive driving they recalled. Intense ‘anger’ or ‘rage’ were most frequently used to describe the emotions experienced in response to the perceived provocation. Less frequently ‘excitement’ and ‘fear’ were cited as relevant emotions. Notably, five of the case studies experienced difficulty articulating their emotions, suggesting emotional difficulties. Consistent with Study Two, these drivers reported negative attributions and most had thoughts of aggressive actions they would like to take. Similarly, these drivers adopted both instrumental and hostile aggressive behaviours during the self-reported incident. Nine participants showed little or no remorse for their behaviour and these drivers also appeared to exhibit low levels of personal insight. Interestingly, few incidents were brought to the attention of the authorities. Further, examination of the person-related characteristics of these drivers indicated that they may be more likely to have come from difficult or dysfunctional backgrounds and to have a history of anti-social behaviours on and off the road. The research program has several key theoretical implications. While many of the findings supported Shinar’s (1998) frustration-aggression model, two key areas of difference emerged. Firstly, aggressive driving behaviour does not always appear to be frustration driven, but can also be driven by feelings of excitation (consistent with the tenets of the General Aggression Model). Secondly, while the findings supported a distinction being made between instrumental and hostile aggressive behaviours, the characteristics of these two types of behaviours require more examination. For example, Shinar (1998) proposes that a driver will adopt an instrumental aggressive behaviour when their progress is impeded if it allows them to achieve their immediate goals (e.g. reaching their destination as quickly as possible); whereas they will engage in hostile aggressive behaviour if their path to their goal is blocked. However, the current results question this assertion, since many of the hostile aggressive drivers studied appeared prepared to engage in hostile acts irrespective of whether their goal was blocked or not. In fact, their behaviour appeared to be characterised by a preparedness to abandon their immediate goals (even if for a short period of time) in order to express their aggression. The use of the General Aggression Model enabled an examination of the three components of the ‘present internal state’ comprising emotions, cognitions and arousal and how these influence the likelihood of a person responding aggressively to an on-road situation. This provided a detailed insight into both the cognitive and emotional aspects of aggressive driving that have important implications for the design of relevant countermeasures. For example, the findings highlighted the potential value of utilising Cognitive Behavioural Therapy with aggressive drivers, particularly the more hostile offenders. Similarly, educational efforts need to be mindful of the way that person-related factors appear to influence one’s perception of another driver’s behaviour as aggressive or benign. Those drivers with a predisposition for aggression were more likely to perceive aggression or ‘wrong doing’ in an ambiguous on-road situation and respond with instrumental and/or hostile behaviour, highlighting the importance of perceptual processes in aggressive driving behaviour.

Reducing aggression on our roads : testing a comprehensive model of aggressive driving

Background: Trauma resulting from traffic crashes poses a significant problem in highly motorised countries. Over a million people worldwide are killed annually and 50 million are critically injured as a result of traffic collisions. In Australia, road crashes cost an average of $17 billion annually in personal loss of income and quality of life, organisational losses in productivity and workplace quality, and health care costs. Driver aggression has been identified as a key factor contributing to crashes, and many motorists report experiencing mild forms of aggression (e.g., rude gestures, horn honking). However despite this concern, driver aggression has received relatively little attention in empirical research, and existing research has been hampered by a number of methodological and conceptual shortcomings. Specifically, there has been substantial disagreement regarding what constitutes aggressive driving and a failure to examine both the situational factors and the emotional and cognitive processes underlying driver aggression. To enhance current understanding of aggressive driving, a model of driver aggression that highlights the cognitive and emotional processes at play in aggressive driving incidents is proposed. Aims: The research aims to improve current understanding of the complex nature of driver aggression by testing and refining a model of aggressive driving that incorporates the person-related and situational factors and the cognitive and emotional appraisal processes fundamental to driver aggression. In doing so, the research will assist to provide a clear definition of what constitutes aggressive driving, assist to identify on-road incidents that trigger driver aggression, and identify the emotional and cognitive appraisal processes that underlie driver aggression. Methods: The research involves three studies. Firstly, to contextualise the model and explore the cognitive and emotional aspects of driver aggression, a diary-based study using self-reports of aggressive driving events will be conducted with a general population of drivers. This data will be supplemented by in-depth follow-up interviews with a sub-sample of participants. Secondly, to test generalisability of the model, a large sample of drivers will be asked to respond to video-based scenarios depicting driving contexts derived from incidents identified in Study 1 as inciting aggression. Finally, to further operationalise and test the model an advanced driving simulator will be used with sample of drivers. These drivers will be exposed to various driving scenarios that would be expected to trigger negative emotional responses. Results: Work on the project has commenced and progress on the first study will be reported.

Coping with aggressive driving : driver accounts of how they manage themselves and others to reduce conflict on the road

Dealing with the aggression of other drivers on the road is an important skill given that driving is a common activity for adults in highly motorised countries. Even though incidents of extreme aggression on the road (such as assault) are reportedly rare, milder forms, some of them dangerous (such as tailgating or deliberately following too closely) are apparently common, and may be increasing. At the very least, this is likely to render the driving environment more stressful, and at worst elevates the risk of crashing by increasing both the level of risky driving behaviours and the likelihood of responses that escalate the situation. Thus the need for drivers to manage incidents of conflict is likely to become increasingly important. However, little research examines how drivers manage their own or others’ aggressive driving behaviour. Recently greater attention has been paid to driver cognitions, especially the attributions that drivers make about other drivers, that then might influence their own driving responses, particularly aggressive or risky ones. The study reported below was the first in a larger exploration of aggressive driving that focussed on driver cognitions, emotions and underlying motivations for aggressive behaviours on the road. Qualitative, in-depth interviews of drivers (n = 30, aged 18-49 years) were subjected to thematic analysis to investigate driver experiences with aggressive driving. Two main themes were identified from these accounts: driver management of self; and driver attempts to influence or manage other drivers. This paper describes the subthemes falling under the management of self main theme. These subthemes were labelled ‘being magnanimous’, ‘chilling out’, ‘slowing down’, and ‘apology/acknowledgment’. ‘Being magnanimous’ referred to situations where the respondent perceived him/herself to be a recipient of another’s aggressive driving and made a deliberate choice not to respond. However, a characteristic of this sub-theme was that this choice was underpinned by the adoption of morally superior stance, or sense of magnanimity. ‘Chilling out’ was a more general response to both the milder aggressive behaviours of other drivers and the general frustrations of driving. ‘Slowing down’ referred to reducing one’s speed in response to the perceived aggressive driving, often tailgating, of another. This subtheme appeared to consist of two separate underlying motivations. One of these was a genuine concern for one’s own safety while the other was more aimed at “getting back” at the other driver. ‘Apology’ referred to how drivers modified their more negative reactions and responses when another driver made gestures that acknowledged their having made a mistake, indicated an apology, or acknowledged the recipient driver. These sub-themes are discussed in relation to their implications for understanding aggressive driving and intervening to reduce it.

Detection of tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) and plasminogen activator inhibitor 2(PAI-2) in gingival crevicular fluid from healthy, gingivitis and periodontitis patients

Background: The regulation of plasminogen activation is a key element in controlling proteolytic events in the extracellular matrix. Our previous studies had demonstrated that in inflamed gingival tissues, tissue-type plasminogen activator (t-PA) is significantly increased in the extracellular matrix of the connective tissue and that interleukin 1β (IL-1β) can up regulate the level of t-PA and plasminogen activator inhibitor-2 (PAI-2) synthesis by human gingival fibroblasts. Method: In the present study, the levels of t-PA and PAI-2 in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) were measured from healthy, gingivitis and periodontitis sites and compared before and after periodontal treatment. Crevicular fluid from106 periodontal sites in 33 patients were collected. 24 sites from 11 periodontitis patients received periodontal treatment after the first sample collection and post-treatment samples were collected 14 days after treatment. All samples were analyzed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for t-PA and PAI-2. Results: The results showed that significantly high levels of t-PA and PAI-2 in GCF were found in the gingivitis and periodontitis sites. Periodontal treatment led to significant decreases of PAI-2, but not t-PA, after 14 days. A significant positive linear correlation was found between t-PA and PAI-2 in GCF (r=0.80, p<0.01). In the healthy group, different sites from within the same subject showed little variation of t-PA and PAI-2 in GCF. However, the gingivitis and periodontitis sites showed large variation. These results suggest a good correlation between t-PA and PAI-2 with the severity of periodontal conditions. Conclusion: This study indicates that t-PA and PAI-2 may play a significant rôle in the periodontal tissue destruction and tissue remodeling and that t-PA and PAI-2 in GCF may be used as clinical markers to evaluate the periodontal diseases and assess treatment.

A meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies to identify prostate cancer susceptibility loci associated with aggressive and non-aggressive disease

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified multiple common genetic variants associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer (PrCa), but these explain less than one-third of the heritability. To identify further susceptibility alleles, we conducted a meta-analysis of four GWAS including 5953 cases of aggressive PrCa and 11 463 controls (men without PrCa). We computed association tests for approximately 2.6 million SNPs and followed up the most significant SNPs by genotyping 49 121 samples in 29 studies through the international PRACTICAL and BPC3 consortia. We not only confirmed the association of a PrCa susceptibility locus, rs11672691 on chromosome 19, but also showed an association with aggressive PrCa [odds ratio = 1.12 (95% confidence interval 1.03-1.21), P = 1.4 × 10(-8)]. This report describes a genetic variant which is associated with aggressive PrCa, which is a type of PrCa associated with a poorer prognosis.