Morningness-eveningness orientation, optimal time-of-day and attitude change: Evidence for the systematic processing of a persuasive communication

This study investigates the effects of morningness-eveningness orientation and time-of-day on persuasion. In an attitude change paradigm, 120 female participants read a persuasive message that consisted of six counter-attitudinal arguments (anti-voluntary euthanasia) either in the morning (8:30 a.m.) or in the evening (7:00 p.m.). Attitude change was assessed by measuring attitudes towards the target issue before and after exposure to the message. Message processing was assessed by thought-listing and message recall tasks. Self-reported mood and arousal were monitored throughout. Participants were classified into M- and E-types according to their scores on the Horne and Ostberg (1976) MEQ questionnaire. When tested at their respective optimal time-of-day (i.e., morning for M-types/evening for E-types), M- and E-types reported higher energetic arousal, greater agreement with the message, greater message-congruent thinking, and a propensity for superior message recall compared to M- and E-types tested at their nonoptimal time-of-day (i.e., evening for M-types/morning for E-types). The attitude change in those tested at their optimal time-of-day was mediated by the level of message-congruent thinking. Results are interpreted in terms of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Evidence-based medicine is affordable: The cost-effectiveness of current compared with optimal treatment in rheumatoid and osteoarthritis

Objective. To determine the cost-effectiveness of averting the burden of disease. We used secondary population data and metaanalyses of various government-funded services and interventions to investigate the costs and benefits of various levels of treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA) in adults using a burden of disease framework. Method. Population burden was calculated for both diseases in the absence of any treatment as years lived with disability (YLD), ignoring the years of life lost. We then estimated the proportion of burden averted with current interventions, the proportion that could be averted with optimally implemented cut-rent evidence-based guidelines, and the direct treatment cost-effectiveness ratio in dollars per YLD averted for both treatment levels. Results. The majority of people with arthritis sought medical treatment. Current treatment for RA averted 26% of the burden, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $19,000 per YLD averted. Optimal, evidence-based treatment would avert 48% of the burden. with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $12,000 per YLD averted. Current treatment of OA in Australia averted 27% of the burden, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $25,000 per YLD averted. Optimal, evidence-based treatment would avert 39% of the burden, with an unchanged cost-effectiveness ratio of $25,000 per YLD averted. Conclusion. While the precise dollar costs in each country will differ, the relativities at this level of coverage should remain the same. There is no evidence that closing the gap between evidence and practice would result in a drop in efficiency.