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.

A lightweight technique for assessing risks in requirements analysis

A simple and practical technique for assessing the risks, that is, the potential for error, and consequent loss, in software system development, acquired during a requirements engineering phase is described. The technique uses a goal-based requirements analysis as a framework to identify and rate a set of key issues in order to arrive at estimates of the feasibility and adequacy of the requirements. The technique is illustrated and how it has been applied to a real systems development project is shown. How problems in this project could have been identified earlier is shown, thereby avoiding costly additional work and unhappy users.

A tractable means of correcting sector level TFP calculations in the face of biased technological change.

The measurement of the impact of technical change has received significant attention within the economics literature. One popular method of quantifying the impact of technical change is the use of growth accounting index numbers. However, in a recent article Nelson and Pack (1999) criticise the use of such index numbers in situations where technical change is likely to be biased in favour of one or other inputs. In particular they criticise the common approach of applying observed cost shares, as proxies for partial output elasticities, to weight the change in quantities which they claim is only valid under Hicks neutrality. Recent advances in the measurement of product and factor biases of technical change developed by Balcombe et al (2000) provide a relatively straight-forward means of correcting product and factor shares in the face of biased technical progress. This paper demonstrates the correction of both revenue and cost shares used in the construction of a TFP index for UK agriculture over the period 1953 to 2000 using both revenue and cost function share equations appended with stochastic latent variables to capture the bias effect. Technical progress is shown to be biased between both individual input and output groups. Output and input quantity aggregates are then constructed using both observed and corrected share weights and the resulting TFPs are compared. There does appear to be some significant bias in TFP if the effect of biased technical progress is not taken into account when constructing the weights