Assessment of the effect of time and temperature on the availability of residual phosphate in a glasshouse study of four soils using the Olsen method

The Olsen method is an indicator of plant-available phosphorus (P). The effect of time and temperature on residual phosphate in soils was measured using the Olsen method in a pot experiment. Four soils were investigated: two from Pakistan and one each from England (calcareous) and Colombia (acidic). Two levels of residual phosphate were developed in each soil after addition of phosphate by incubation at either 10degreesC or 45degreesC. The amount of phosphate added was based on the P maximum of each soil, calculated using the Langmuir equation. Rvegrass was used as the test crop. The pooled data for the four soils incubated at 10degreesC showed good correlation between Olsen P and dry matter yield or P uptake (r(2) = 0.85 and 0.77, respectively), whereas at 45 degreesC, each soil had its own relationship and pooled data did not show correlation of Olsen P with dry matter yield or P uptake. When the data at both temperatures were pooled, Olsen P was a good indicator of yield and uptake for the English soil. For the Pakistani soils, Olsen P after 45 degreesC treatment was an underestimate relative to the 10 degreesC data and for the Colombian soil it was an overestimate. The reasons for these differences need to be explored further before high temperature incubation can be used to simulate long-term changes in the field.

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.