On the use of headline indices to link environmental quality and income at the level of the nation state

This paper deconstructs the relationship between the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) and national income. The ESI attempts to provide a single figure which encapsulates environmental sustainability' for each country included in the analysis, and this allied with a 'league table' format so as to name and shame bad performers, has resulted in widespread reporting within the popular presses of a number of countries. In essence, the higher the value of the ESI then the more 'environmentally sustainable' a country is deemed to be. A logical progression beyond the use of the ESI to publicise environmental sustainability is its use within a more analytical context. Thus an index designed to simplify in order to have an impact on policy is used to try and understand causes of good and bad performance in environmental sustainability. For example the creators of the ESI claim that ESI is related to GDP/capita (adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity) such that the ESI increases linearly with wealth. While this may in a sense be a comforting picture, do the variables within the ESI allow for alternatives to the story, and if they do then what are the repercussions for those producing such indices for broad consumption amongst the policy makers, mangers, the press, etc.? The latter point is especially important given the appetite for such indices amongst non-specialists, and for all their weaknesses the ESI and other such aggregated indices will not go away. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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.

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.