Observer reactions to workplace mistreatment

This study explored observer reactions to workplace interpersonal mistreatment using an inductive analysis approach. I conducted 32 interviews with a wide sample of working professionals from various backgrounds and industries to examine how observers react to the unfolding process of workplace interpersonal mistreatment incidents. Specifically, the goal of this study was to gain a deeper and closer understanding of observer reaction processes by examining first-hand accounts of employees who have witnessed co-workers being mistreated by others. I generated typologies of reported observer affective, cognitive, and behavioral reactions that emerged from their stories, and I identified what employees believe are important factors that inhibit or enable intervention. Results reveal that a majority of employees are not inclined to intervene during an ongoing mistreatment incident, and that observers who intervened during the incident reported different appraisal processes than observers who only intervened afterwards, or who did not intervene at all. From these personal accounts of observing workplace mistreatment, I interpreted that observers generally react to interpersonal mistreatment incidents in two phases, and that how targets reacted after an incident was an important trigger that propelled observers to become involved afterwards, even if they did not have the desire or the intention to do so. These findings have implications for current theories on observer intervention to mistreatment in the workplace.

"I don't know how you are" or indirect questioning in oncology interviews: an ongoing exploratory study

Background: The exploratory study is part of an evaluation of the pre-graduate teaching of communication skills (Lausanne Medical School). It is based on the data of a project highlighting the impact of individualized vs. group training for medicine students in breaking bad news to simulated patients who are diagnosed with cancer. The analysis of the video-taped interviews of the students (N=63) with the RIAS has shown a current usage of utterances such as I don't know if -you have any plans for the future / you have already heard about chemotherapy / ... or I don't know how -you are feeling today after this surgery / you like that all this stuff takes place / ...Aim: The present study questions the specificity of these assertive utterances used as questions (indirect), the specificity of their content, and their intentionality - specific vs. exploratory.Methods: The mentioned utterances are qualitatively analyzed (content analysis, intentionality analysis, etc).Results: 26 students (41%) used 1 to 6 times I don't know utterances during the interviews that contain 53 of such utterances in total. In contrast, they are atypical in an oncologist sample who conducted similar interviews (N=31; 4 oncologist used them 1 to 2 times). In more than half of the cases (29/53), simulated patients interpret I don't know questions as giving them a space to speak (open responses). Conclusions: The atypicality of the I don't know utterances in the oncologist sample may have linguistic explanations in terms of generational marker, but the specificity of the content suggests psychological explanations in terms of defense mechanism as well (marker of "toning down" or insecurity as regards the discussed topic).Keywords: Breaking bad news, communication skills, oncology, pre-graduate medical education, indirect questioning

Evaluation der Nationalen Krebsbekämpfungsprogramme, Phase I, 1999. Studie 3: Konzeptualisierung und Stand der Umsetzung der vier Krebsbekämpfungsprogramme

[Table des matières] 1. Zusammenfassung und Empfehlungen. 2. Einleitung. 2.1. Hintergrund der Nationalen Krebsbekämpfungsprogramme. 2.2. Grundlagen der Konzeptualisierung der vier Programme. 3. Nationales Programm zur Bekämpfung des Brustkrebses, des Hautkrebses, des Lungkrebses, des Darmkrebses : Beschreibung und beurteilung der Konzeptualisierung des Programms und Schlussfolgerungen und Empfehlungen. 4. Programmübergreifende Aspekte. 5. Chronologische Ubersicht der vier nationalen Krebsbekämpfungsprogramme. 6. Liste des Interviews, welche im Rahmen der Studie 3 der Evaluation der Nationalen Krebsbekämpfungs-Programme durchgeführt wurden. 7. Geplante Realisierung von Zielen in den Bereichen : Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention, Sekundärprävention, Therapie und Nachsorge durch das Programm Brustkrebs. 8. Evaluationsstudien. 9. Raster Umsetzung der Programmbausteine.

Type I IFN controls chikungunya virus via its action on nonhematopoietic cells.

Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) is the causative agent of an outbreak that began in La Réunion in 2005 and remains a major public health concern in India, Southeast Asia, and southern Europe. CHIKV is transmitted to humans by mosquitoes and the associated disease is characterized by fever, myalgia, arthralgia, and rash. As viral load in infected patients declines before the appearance of neutralizing antibodies, we studied the role of type I interferon (IFN) in CHIKV pathogenesis. Based on human studies and mouse experimentation, we show that CHIKV does not directly stimulate type I IFN production in immune cells. Instead, infected nonhematopoietic cells sense viral RNA in a Cardif-dependent manner and participate in the control of infection through their production of type I IFNs. Although the Cardif signaling pathway contributes to the immune response, we also find evidence for a MyD88-dependent sensor that is critical for preventing viral dissemination. Moreover, we demonstrate that IFN-alpha/beta receptor (IFNAR) expression is required in the periphery but not on immune cells, as IFNAR(-/-)-->WT bone marrow chimeras are capable of clearing the infection, whereas WT-->IFNAR(-/-) chimeras succumb. This study defines an essential role for type I IFN, produced via cooperation between multiple host sensors and acting directly on nonhematopoietic cells, in the control of CHIKV.