Forensic science culture

Heretofore the issue of quality in forensic science is approached through a quality management policy whose tenets are ruled by market forces. Despite some obvious advantages of standardization of methods allowing interlaboratory comparisons and implementation of databases, this approach suffers from a serious lack of consideration for forensic science as a science. A critical study of its principles and foundations, which constitutes its culture, enables to consider the matter of scientific quality through a new dimension. A better understanding of what pertains to forensic science ensures a better application and improves elementary actions within the investigative and intelligence processes as well as the judicial process. This leads to focus the attention on the core of the subject matter: the physical remnants of the criminal activity, namely, the traces that produce information in understanding this activity. Adapting practices to the detection and recognition of relevant traces relies on the apprehension of the processes underlying forensic science tenets (Locard, Kirk, relevancy issue) and a structured management of circumstantial information (directindirect information). This is influenced by forensic science education and training. However, the lack of homogeneity with regard to the scientific nature and culture of the discipline within forensic science practitioners and partners represents a real challenge. A sound and critical reconsideration of the forensic science practitioner's roles (investigator, evaluator, intelligence provider) and objectives (prevention, strategies, evidence provider) within the criminal justice system is a means to strengthen the understanding and the application of forensic science. Indeed, the whole philosophy is aimed at ensuring a high degree of excellence, namely, a dedicated scientific quality.

Statistics in science and in society: From a state-of-the-art to a new research agenda

Statistics occupies a prominent role in science and citizens' daily life. This article provides a state-of-the-art of the problems associated with statistics in science and in society, structured along the three paradigms defined by Bauer, Allum and Miller (2007). It explores in more detail medicine and public understanding of science on the one hand, and risks and surveys on the other. Statistics has received a good deal of attention; however, very often handled in terms of deficit - either of scientists or of citizens. Many tools have been proposed to improve statistical literacy, the image of and trust in statistics, but with little understanding of their roots, with little coordination among stakeholders and with few assessments of impacts. These deficiencies represent as many new and promising directions in which the PUS research agenda could be expanded.

Information provision and information needs in adult survivors of childhood cancer.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about their past medical history is central for childhood cancer survivors to ensure informed decisions in their health management. Knowledge about information provision and information needs in this population is still scarce. We thus aimed to assess: (1) the information survivors reported to have received on disease, treatment, follow-up, and late effects; (2) their information needs in these four domains and the format in which they would like it provided; (3) the association with psychological distress and quality of life (QoL). PROCEDURE: As part of the Follow-up survey of the Swiss Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, we sent a questionnaire to all survivors (≥18 years) who previously participated to the baseline survey, were diagnosed with cancer after 1990 at an age of <16 years. RESULTS: Most survivors had received oral information only (on illness: oral: 82%, written: 38%, treatment: oral: 79%, written: 36%; follow-up: oral: 77%, written: 23%; late effects: oral: 68%, written: 14%). Most survivors who had not previously received any information rated it as important, especially information on late effects (71%). A large proportion of survivors reported current information needs and would like to receive personalized information especially on late effects (44%). Survivors with higher information needs reported higher psychological distress and lower QoL. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors want to be more informed especially on possible late effects, and want to receive personalized information. Improving information provision, both qualitatively and quantitatively, will allow survivors to have better control of their health and to become better decision makers.

Combined written and oral information prior to gastrointestinal endoscopy compared with oral information alone: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how to most effectively deliver relevant information to patients scheduled for endoscopy. METHODS: To assess the effects of combined written and oral information, compared with oral information alone on the quality of information before endoscopy and the level of anxiety. We designed a prospective study in two Swiss teaching hospitals which enrolled consecutive patients scheduled for endoscopy over a three-month period. Patients were randomized either to receiving, along with the appointment notice, an explanatory leaflet about the upcoming examination, or to oral information delivered by each patient's doctor. Evaluation of quality of information was rated on scales between 0 (none received) and 5 (excellent). The analysis of outcome variables was performed on the basis of intention to treat-analysis. Multivariate analysis of predictors of information scores was performed by linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 718 eligible patients 577 (80%) returned their questionnaire. Patients who received written leaflets (N = 278) rated the quality of information they received higher than those informed verbally (N = 299), for all 8 quality-of-information items. Differences were significant regarding information about the risks of the procedure (3.24 versus 2.26, p < 0.001), how to prepare for the procedure (3.56 versus 3.23, p = 0.036), what to expect after the procedure (2.99 versus 2.59, p < 0.001), and the 8 quality-of-information items (3.35 versus 3.02, p = 0.002). The two groups reported similar levels of anxiety before procedure (p = 0.66), pain during procedure (p = 0.20), tolerability throughout the procedure (p = 0.76), problems after the procedure (p = 0.22), and overall rating of the procedure between poor and excellent (p = 0.82). CONCLUSION: Written information led to more favourable assessments of the quality of information and had no impact on patient anxiety nor on the overall assessment of the endoscopy. Because structured and comprehensive written information is perceived as beneficial by patients, gastroenterologists should clearly explain to their patients the risks, benefits and alternatives of endoscopic procedures. Trial registration: Current Controlled trial number: ISRCTN34382782.