Engorgement des centres d'urgences: une raison légitime de refuser l'accès aux patients non urgents [Emergency department overcrowding: a legitimate reason to refuse access to urgent care for non-urgent patients?].

Non-urgent cases represent 30-40% of all ED consults; they contribute to overcrowding of emergency departments (ED), which could be reduced if they were denied emergency care. However, no triage instrument has demonstrated a high enough degree of accuracy to safely rule out serious medical conditions: patients suffering from life-threatening emergencies have been inappropriately denied care. Insurance companies have instituted financial penalties to discourage the use of ED as a source of non-urgent care, but this practice mainly restricts access for the underprivileged. More recent data suggest that in fact most patients consult for appropriate urgent reasons, or have no alternate access to urgent care. The safe reduction of overcrowding requires a reform of the healthcare system based on patients' needs rather than access barriers.

Why did Swiss citizens refuse a comprehensive second-hand smoke ban?

The ill effects of second-hand smoke are now well documented. To protect the population from exposure to tobacco smoke, comprehensive smoking bans are necessary as expressed in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and its guidelines. Switzerland has only a partial smoking ban full of exceptions which has been in effect since 2010, which reproduces the so-called Spanish model. In September 2012, the Swiss citizens refused a proposal for a more comprehensive ban. This case study examines the reasons behind this rejection and draws some lessons that can be learnt from it.

Readiness to participate in psychiatric research.

BACKGROUND: The feasibility of clinical trials depends, among other factors, on the number of eligible patients, the recruitment process, and the readiness of patients to participate in research. Seeking patients' views about their experience in research projects may allow investigators to develop more effective recruitment and retention strategies. METHODS: A total of 100 patients consecutively admitted to a psychiatric university hospital were interviewed with respect to their willingness to participate in a study. For a different study scenario, patients were asked whether they would be ready to participate if such a study were organized in the service and to indicate their reasons for refusing or for participating. RESULTS: The general readiness to participate in a study ranged between 70% and 96%. The prospect of remuneration did not notably augment the potential consent rate. The most common and spontaneous motivation for agreeing to take part in a study was to help science progress and to allow future patients to benefit from improved diagnosis and treatment (87%). The presence or lack of a financial incentive was rarely chosen as an argument to agree (23%) or to refuse (7%) to participate. Patients relied mainly on their treating physicians when contemplating possible participation in a study (family physician [65%] and hospital physician [54%]). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and, in particular, treating doctors can play an important role in facilitating the recruitment process.

Using information from telephone panel surveys to predict reasons for refusal

One of the key problems in conducting surveys is convincing people to participate.¦However, it is often difficult or impossible to determine why people refuse. Panel surveys¦provide information from previous waves that can offer valuable clues as to why people¦refuse to participate. If we are able to anticipate the reasons for refusal, then we¦may be able to take appropriate measures to encourage potential respondents to participate¦in the survey. For example, special training could be provided for interviewers¦on how to convince potential participants to participate.¦This study examines different influences, as determined from the previous wave,¦on refusal reasons that were given by the respondents in the subsequent wave of the¦telephone Swiss Household Panel. These influences include socio-demography, social¦inclusion, answer quality, and interviewer assessment of question understanding and¦of future participation. Generally, coefficients are similar across reasons, and¦between-respondents effects rather than within-respondents effects are significant.¦While 'No interest' reasons are easier to predict, the other reasons are more situational. Survey-specific issues are able to distinguish¦different reasons to some extent.

Statistical hypothesis testing and common misinterpretations: should we abandon p-value in forensic science applications?

Many people regard the concept of hypothesis testing as fundamental to inferential statistics. Various schools of thought, in particular frequentist and Bayesian, have promoted radically different solutions for taking a decision about the plausibility of competing hypotheses. Comprehensive philosophical comparisons about their advantages and drawbacks are widely available and continue to span over large debates in the literature. More recently, controversial discussion was initiated by an editorial decision of a scientific journal [1] to refuse any paper submitted for publication containing null hypothesis testing procedures. Since the large majority of papers published in forensic journals propose the evaluation of statistical evidence based on the so called p-values, it is of interest to expose the discussion of this journal's decision within the forensic science community. This paper aims to provide forensic science researchers with a primer on the main concepts and their implications for making informed methodological choices.