Trust considerations on attitudes towards online purchasing: The moderating effect of privacy and security concerns

The research examines the relationships between three common trust considerations (vendor, Internet and third parties) and attitudes towards online purchasing. The study incorporates privacy and security concerns as a moderating variable and finds that these relationships vary depending on the level of concerns a consumer has when purchasing online. The study suggests that "fears" surrounding the Internet as a place to do business still hinder the use of it for e-commerce purposes, but that the presence of a reputable agent might in some manner mitigate this risk. In the context of business to consumer relationships trust in the vendor is important for the consumer to accept any risk associated with a transaction. Theoretical implications for online customer behavior theory are also discussed. © 2009 Elsevier Inc.

Dissonances in self-reported health and mortality across denominational groups in Northern Ireland

Measures of self-reported health status are increasingly used in research and health policy. However, the inherent subjectivity of the responses gives rise to lingering concerns about their utility, especially across national and cultural boundaries. In this study we use religious denomination as a proxy for Scottish ancestry within Northern Ireland and demonstrate significant differences in levels of self-reported ill-health that are not fully reflected in mortality risks. These findings mirror the differences between Scotland and Northern Ireland previously shown in ecological studies and provide more definitive evidence that even within the United Kingdom factors other than morbidity levels influence the perception and reporting of health status. Possible explanations for the dissonance between morbidity and mortality levels are discussed and the reasons for a preference for socio-economic rather than cultural factors are described. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The Hand of Government in Shaping Accounting and Reporting in the UK Charity Sector

Accounting in the UK charity sector has changed massively over the last 25 years, with various stakeholders influencing what has occurred. Using insights from stakeholder theory, and interviews with a number of key actors, this article focuses on the influence of one definitive stakeholder – government – in developing a regime of quality accounting and reporting in the sector. In particular, the evolution of the Statement of Recommended Practice for charities is explored. It is argued that a much tighter and more meaningful regime of accounting and reporting has been encouraged by government, amongst other stakeholders, and this has led to a more accountable and healthier charitable sector.

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA ( Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and metaanalyses.