Construction subcontracts: for what we are about to receive

This paper is from a study on specialist and trade contracting in the construction industry. The research was commissioned by CIRIA and undertaken by the University of Reading in conjunction with Sir Alexander Gibb & Partners Ltd. The purpose of the work was to provide guidance for effective and equitable practice in the management of projects where much of the work is executed, and possibly designed, by specialist and trade contractors (STCs). As part of this study, a preliminary investigation into the nature and origins of specialist contracting was undertaken, in conjunction with a survey of the problems confronting STCs. This paper presents that phase of the project.

Provision of information about drug side-effects to patients

To make informed decisions about taking medicinal drugs, people need accurate information about side-effects. A European Union guideline now recommends use of qualitative descriptions for five bands of risk, ranging from very rare (affecting < 0·01% of the population), to very common (>10%). We did four studies of more than 750 people, whom we asked to estimate the probability of having a side-effect on the basis of qualitative and quantitative descriptions. Our results showed that qualitative descriptions led to gross overestimation of risk. Until further work is done on how patients taking the drugs interpret these terms, the terms should not be used in drug information leaflets.

Communicating information about medication side effects: effects on satisfaction, perceived risk to health, and intention to comply

Previous research has shown that people's evaluations of explanations about medication and their intention to comply with the prescription are detrimentally affected by the inclusion of information about adverse side effects of the medication. The present study (Experiment 1) examined which particular aspects of information about side effects (their number, likelihood of occurrence, or severity) are likely to have the greatest effect on people's satisfaction, perception of risk, and intention to comply, as well as how the information about side effects interacts with information about the severity of the illness for which the medication was prescribed. Across all measures, it was found that manipulations of side effect severity had the greatest impact on people's judgements, followed by manipulations of side effect likelihood and then number. Experiments 2 and 3 examined how the severity of the diagnosed illness and information about negative side effects interact with two other factors suggested by Social Cognition models of health behaviour to affect people's intention to comply: namely, perceived benefit of taking the prescribed drug, and the perceived level of control over preventing or alleviating the side effects. It was found that providing people with a statement about the positive benefit of taking the medication had relatively little effect on judgements, whereas informing them about how to reduce the chances of experiencing the side effects had an overall beneficial effect on ratings.

Is 15 per cent very common? Informing people about the risks of medication side effects

Objectives - To assess the general public's interpretation of the verbal descriptors for side effect frequency recommended for use in medicine information leaflets by a European Union (EU) guideline, and to examine the extent to which differences in interpretation affect people's perception of risk and their judgments of intention to comply with the prescribed treatment. Method - Two studies used a controlled empirical methodology in which people were presented with a hypothetical, but realistic, scenario about visiting their general practitioner and being prescribed medication. They were given an explanation that focused on the side effects of the medicine, together with information about the probability of occurrence using either numerical percentages or the corresponding EU verbal descriptors. Interpretation of the descriptors was assessed. In study 2, participants were also required to make various judgments, including risk to health and intention to comply. Key findings - In both studies, use of the EU recommended descriptors led to significant overestimations of the likelihood of particular side effects occurring. Study 2 further showed that the "overestimation" resulted in significantly increased ratings of perceived severity of side effects and risk to health, as well as significantly reduced ratings of intention to comply, compared with those for people who received the probability information in numerical form. Conclusion - While it is recognised that the current findings require replication in a clinical setting, the European and national authorities should suspend the use of the EU recommended terms until further research is available to allow the use of an evidence-based approach.

Evaluating explanations about drug prescriptions: effects of varying the nature of information about side effects and its relative position in explanations

This study evaluates computer-generated written explanations about drug prescriptions that are based on an analysis of both patient and doctor informational needs. Three experiments examine the effects of varying the type of information given about the possible side effects of the medication, and the order of information within the explanation. Experiment 1 investigated the effects of these two factors on people's ratings of how good they consider the explanations to be and of their perceived likelihood of taking the medication, as well as on their memory for the information in the explanation. Experiment 2 further examined the effects of varying information about side effects by separating out the contribution of number and severity of side effects. It was found that participants in this study did not “like” explanations that described severe side effects, and also judged that they would be less likely to take the medication if given such explanations. Experiment 3 therefore investigated whether information about severe side effects could be presented in such a way as to increase judgements of how good explanations are thought to be, as well as the perceived likelihood of adherence. The results showed some benefits of providing additional explanatory information.

What do patients want to know about their medicines, and what do doctors want to tell them?: a comparative study

A two phase study is reported. In the first phase, we asked a number of doctors to rate a list of information categories (identified by Berry, Gillie and Banbury 1995) in terms of how important they felt it was for the items to be included in an explanation to a patient about a drug prescription. In the second phase, we presented a large sample of people with a scenario about visiting their doctor and being prescribed medication, together with an explanation about the prescription which was said to be provided by the doctor. Four different explanations were compared, which were either based on what people in our earlier study wanted to know about drug prescriptions or on what the doctors thought it was important lo tell them. We also manipulated whether or not the explanations conveyed negative information (e.g. about the possible side effects of the medication). The results showed that people 'preferred' the explanations based on what the participants in the earlier study wanted to know about their medicines, rather than those based on what the doctors thought they should be told. They also 'preferred' the explanations that did not convey negative information, rather than those that did convey some negative information. In addition, the inclusion of negative information affected ratings of likely compliance with the prescribed medication.

Generating recipient-centred explanations about drug prescription

In this paper we describe how we generated written explanations to ‘indirect users’ of a knowledge-based system in the domain of drug prescription. We call ‘indirect users’ the intended recipients of explanations, to distinguish them from the prescriber (the ‘direct’ user) who interacts with the system. The Explanation Generator was designed after several studies about indirect users' information needs and physicians' explanatory attitudes in this domain. It integrates text planning techniques with ATN-based surface generation. A double modeling component enables adapting the information content, order and style to the indirect user to whom explanation is addressed. Several examples of computer-generated texts are provided, and they are contrasted with the physicians' explanations to discuss advantages and limits of the approach adopted.

Shared neural circuits for mentalizing about the self and others

Although many examples exist for shared neural representations of self and other, it is unknown how such shared representations interact with the rest of the brain. Furthermore, do high-level inference-based shared mentalizing representations interact with lower level embodied/simulation-based shared representations? We used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) and a functional connectivity approach to assess these questions during high-level inference-based mentalizing. Shared mentalizing representations in ventromedial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate/precuneus, and temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) all exhibited identical functional connectivity patterns during mentalizing of both self and other. Connectivity patterns were distributed across low-level embodied neural systems such as the frontal operculum/ventral premotor cortex, the anterior insula, the primary sensorimotor cortex, and the presupplementary motor area. These results demonstrate that identical neural circuits are implementing processes involved in mentalizing of both self and other and that the nature of such processes may be the integration of low-level embodied processes within higher level inference-based mentalizing.