"What do other people think?" - The role of prejudice and social norms in the expression of opinions against gay men

It is generally acknowledged that it is no longer socially acceptable to espouse prejudiced beliefs, yet prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behaviours still occur. The present study sought to determine when and by whom prejudiced attitudes would be expressed. Specifically, an experiment was conducted to examine the impact of injunctive social norms emanating from a social group with which participants identified and participants' level of homophobia on the expression of opinions about gay men. Participants were presented with information indicating that the majority of group members agreed with a number of prejudiced injunctive statements (pro-prejudice norm), that the majority disagreed with the statements (anti-prejudice norm), or they were given no information about other group members' opinions (control). Participants then reported their own responses to the same injunctive statements. Participants' levels of homophobia were assessed either before or after they were given the normative information. The results indicated that activation of a pro-prejudice injunctive norm for those higher in homophobia resulted in more prejudiced opinions being expressed in comparison to those who received no normative information or those who had a nonprejudiced norm activated. Those lower in homophobia expressed less prejudiced opinions than those higher in homophobia and this did not differ as a function of social norm. The results demonstrate how prejudice can come to be expressed even in the presence of a broad societal norm that suggests that is it wrong to express such opinions.

Using patients' and rheumatologists' opinions to specify a short form of the WOMAC function subscale

Background: The WOMAC ( Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) function subscale is widely used in clinical trials of hip and knee osteoarthritis. Reducing the number of items of the subscale would enhance efficiency and compliance, particularly for use in clinical practice applications. Objective: To develop a short form of the WOMAC function subscale based on patients' and experts' opinions ( WOMAC function short form). Methods: WOMAC function subscale data ( Likert version) were obtained from 1218 outpatients with painful hip or knee osteoarthritis. These patients and their rheumatologists selected the five items that they considered most in need of improvement. The rheumatologists were asked to select the five items for which patients in general are the most impaired. Items that were least important to patients and experts, those with a high proportion of missing data, and those with a response distribution showing a floor or ceiling response were excluded, along with one of a pair of items with a correlation coefficient >0.75. Results: The WOMAC function short form included items 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 15 of the long form. The short form did not differ substantially from the long form in responsiveness ( standardised response mean of 0.84 v 0.80). Conclusions: A short form of the WOMAC function subscale was developed according to the views of patients and rheumatologists, based on the responses of 1218 patients and 399 rheumatologists. The clinical relevance and applicability of this WOMAC function subscale short form require further evaluation.

A framework for systematically improving occupational therapy expert opinions on work capacity

Aim: To present an evidence-based framework to improve the quality of occupational therapy expert opinions on work capacity for litigation, compensation and insurance purposes. Methods: Grounded theory methodology was used to collect and analyse data from a sample of 31 participants, comprising 19 occupational therapists, 6 medical specialists and 6 lawyers. A focused semistructured interview was completed with each participant. In addition, 20 participants verified the key findings. Results: The framework is contextualised within a medicolegal system requiring increasing expertise. The framework consists of (i) broad professional development strategies and principles, and (ii) specific strategies and principles for improving opinions through reporting and assessment practices. Conclusions: The synthesis of the participants' recommendations provides systematic guidelines for improving occupational therapy expert opinion on work capacity.