Ownership Effects on Unrelated Diversification: An Institutions' Perspective

Purpose To show that differences in the extent to which firms engage in unrelated diversification can be attributed to differences in ownership structure. Methodology/approach We draw on longitudinal data and use a panel analysis specification to test our hypotheses. Findings We find that unrelated diversification destroys value; pressure-sensitive Anglo-American owners in a firm’s equity reduce unrelated diversification, whereas pressure-resistant domestic owners increase unrelated diversification; the greater the firm’s free cash flow, the greater the negative effect of pressure-sensitive Anglo-American owners on unrelated diversification. Research limitations/implications We contribute to corporate governance and strategy research by bringing in owners’ institutional origin as a shaper of owner preferences in particular with regards to unrelated diversification. Future research may expand our investigation to more than one home institutional context, and theorize on institutional origin effects beyond the dichotomy between Anglo-American and non-Anglo-American (not oriented toward shareholder value maximization) owners. Practical implications Policy makers, financial analysts, owners, and managers may want to reflect about the implications of ownership structure, as well as promoting or joining corporations with particular ownership configurations. Social implications A shareholder value-destroying strategy, such as unrelated diversification has adverse consequences for society at large, in terms of opportunity costs, that is, resources could be allocated to value-creating activities instead. Promoting an ownership configuration that creates value should contribute to social welfare. Originality/value Owners may not be exclusively driven by shareholder value maximization, but can be influenced by normative beliefs (biases) stemming from the institutional context they originate from.

Screening primary-care patients forgoing health care for economic reasons.

BACKGROUND: Growing social inequities have made it important for general practitioners to verify if patients can afford treatment and procedures. Incorporating social conditions into clinical decision-making allows general practitioners to address mismatches between patients' health-care needs and financial resources. OBJECTIVES: Identify a screening question to, indirectly, rule out patients' social risk of forgoing health care for economic reasons, and estimate prevalence of forgoing health care and the influence of physicians' attitudes toward deprivation. DESIGN: Multicenter cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-seven general practitioners working in the French-speaking part of Switzerland enrolled a random sample of patients attending their private practices. MAIN MEASURES: Patients who had forgone health care were defined as those reporting a household member (including themselves) having forgone treatment for economic reasons during the previous 12 months, through a self-administered questionnaire. Patients were also asked about education and income levels, self-perceived social position, and deprivation levels. KEY RESULTS: Overall, 2,026 patients were included in the analysis; 10.7% (CI95% 9.4-12.1) reported a member of their household to have forgone health care during the 12 previous months. The question "Did you have difficulties paying your household bills during the last 12 months" performed better in identifying patients at risk of forgoing health care than a combination of four objective measures of socio-economic status (gender, age, education level, and income) (R(2) = 0.184 vs. 0.083). This question effectively ruled out that patients had forgone health care, with a negative predictive value of 96%. Furthermore, for physicians who felt powerless in the face of deprivation, we observed an increase in the odds of patients forgoing health care of 1.5 times. CONCLUSION: General practitioners should systematically evaluate the socio-economic status of their patients. Asking patients whether they experience any difficulties in paying their bills is an effective means of identifying patients who might forgo health care.

Oximetry alone versus portable polygraphy for sleep apnea screening before bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Screening for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is recommended as part of the preoperative assessment of obese patients scheduled for bariatric surgery. The objective of this study was to compare the sensitivity of oximetry alone versus portable polygraphy in the preoperative screening for OSA. METHODS: Polygraphy (type III portable monitor) and oximetry data recorded as part of the preoperative assessment before bariatric surgery from 68 consecutive patients were reviewed. We compared the sensitivity of 3% or 4% desaturation index (oximetry alone) with the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI; polygraphy) to diagnose OSA and classify the patients as normal (<10 events per hour), mild to moderate (10-30 events per hour), or severe (>30 events per hour). RESULTS: Using AHI, the prevalence of OSA (AHI > 10 per hour) was 57.4%: 16.2% of the patients were classified as severe, 41.2% as mild to moderate, and 42.6% as normal. Using 3% desaturation index, 22.1% were classified as severe, 47.1% as mild to moderate, and 30.9% as normal. With 4% desaturation index, 17.6% were classified as severe, 32.4% as mild, and 50% as normal. Overall, 3% desaturation index compared to AHI yielded a 95% negative predictive value to rule out OSA (AHI > 10 per hour) and a 100% sensitivity (0.73 positive predictive value) to detect severe OSA (AHI > 30 per hour). CONCLUSIONS: Using oximetry with 3% desaturation index as a screening tool for OSA could allow us to rule out significant OSA in almost a third of the patients and to detect patients with severe OSA. This cheap and widely available technique could accelerate preoperative work-up of these patients.

Patients who attend a private practice vs a university outpatient clinic: how do they differ?

Although interpersonal continuity is commonly assumed to be essential for care, some patients prefer to attend a university outpatient clinic where physicians change regularly and interpersonal continuity of care is not ensured. The aim of this exploratory study was to evaluate the differences between patients attending a university outpatient clinic and patients frequenting a private practice, explore their patterns of care-seeking and their understanding of continued care. We conducted a cross-sectional study of patients attending the university medical outpatient clinic (OC) in Lausanne, Switzerland and ten randomly selected private general practices (PP). Eligible patients were >30 years, Swiss nationals or long term residents, with one or more chronic conditions and attending the same practice for >3 years. They were asked to complete a questionnaire on sociodemographic data, use of medical resources and reasons for choosing and remaining at the same practice. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a randomly selected subset of 26 patients to further explore their preferences. 329 patient questionnaires were completed, 219 by PP and 110 by OC patients. OC patients tended to be of lower socioeconomic status than PP patients. The main reason for choosing a PP were personal recommendation, while a higher percentage of patients chose the OC because they could obtain a first appointment quickly. A higher percentage of PP patients accorded importance to physician communication skills and trust, whereas a higher percentage of OC patients favoured investigation facilities. Qualitative data suggested that although OC and PP patients reported different reasons for consulting, their expectations on the medical and relationship level were similar. Our study suggests that the two groups of patients belong to different social backgrounds, have different patterns of care-seeking and attach importance to different aspects of care continuity. However, patients' expectations and perceptions of the physician-patient relationship are similar.

Social trust : a public good?

Combining theories on social trust and social capital with sociopsychological approaches and applying contextual analyses to Swiss and European survey data, this thesis examines under what circumstances generalised trust, often understood as public good, may not benefit everyone, but instead amplify inequality. The empirical investigation focuses on the Swiss context, but considers different scales of analysis. Two broader questions are addressed. First, might generalised trust imply more or less narrow visions of community and solidarity in different contexts? Applying nonlinear principal component analysis to aggregate indicators, Study 1 explores inclusive and exclusive types of social capital in Europe, measured as regional configurations of generalised trust, civic participation and attitudes towards diversity. Study 2 employs multilevel models to examine how generalised trust, as an individual predisposition and an aggregate climate at the level of Swiss cantons, is linked to equality- directed collective action intention versus radical right support. Second, might high-trust climates impact negatively on disadvantaged members of society, precisely because they reflect a normative discourse of social harmony that impedes recognition of inequality? Study 3 compares how climates of generalised trust at the level of Swiss micro-regions and subjective perceptions of neighbourhood cohesion moderate the negative relationship between socio-economic disadvantage and mental health. Overall, demonstrating beneficial, as well as counterintuitive effects of social trust, this thesis proposes a critical and contextualised approach to the sources and dynamics of social cohesion in democratic societies. -- Cette thèse combine des théories sur le capital social et la confiance sociale avec des approches psychosociales et s'appuie sur des analyses contextuelles de données d'enquêtes suisses et européennes, afin d'étudier dans quelles circonstances la confiance généralisée, souvent présentée comme un bien public, pourrait ne pas bénéficier à tout le monde, mais amplifier les inégalités. Les études empiriques, centrées sur le contexte suisse, intègrent différentes échelles d'analyse et investiguent deux questions principales. Premièrement, la confiance généralisée implique-t-elle des visions plus ou moins restrictives de la communauté et de la solidarité selon le contexte? Dans l'étude 1, une analyse à composantes principales non-linéaire sur des indicateurs agrégés permet d'explorer des types de capital social inclusif et exclusif en Europe, mesurés par des configurations régionales de confiance généralisée, de participation civique, et d'attitudes envers la diversité. L'étude 2 utilise des modèles multiniveaux afin d'analyser comment la confiance généralisée, en tant que prédisposition individuelle et climat agrégé au niveau des cantons suisses, est associée à l'intention de participer à des actions collectives en faveur de l'égalité ou, au contraire, à l'intention de voter pour la droite radicale. Deuxièmement, des climats de haute confiance peuvent-ils avoir un impact négatif sur des membres désavantagés de la société, précisément parce qu'ils reflètent un discours normatif d'harmonie sociale qui empêche la reconnaissance des inégalités? L'étude 3 analyse comment des climats de confiance au niveau des micro-régions suisses et la perception subjective de faire partie d'un environnement cohésif modèrent la relation négative entre le désavantage socio-économique et la santé mentale. En démontrant des effets bénéfiques mais aussi contre-intuitifs de la confiance sociale, cette thèse propose une approche critique et contextualisée des sources et dynamiques de la cohésion sociale dans les sociétés démocratiques.