Relationship between drug use and psychopathological variables of risk in university students

Resumen tomado de la publicación

Newborn hearing screening: examining the presence of risk factors for hearing loss

This paper identifies risk factors associated with hearing loss in newborns, including family history, craniofacial abnormalities, and ototoxic medications.

Effects of active information processing on the understanding of risk information

Two experiments investigated effects of active processing of risk information on participants' understanding and judgments. It was hypothesized that more active processing would lead to better understanding and differences in affective judgments (e.g. increased satisfaction and reduced perceived risk to health). In both experiments participants were given a written scenario about their being prescribed a fictitious medication. This medication was said to cause side effects in 2% of people who took it. Before answering a series of written questions, participants in the active conditions of both experiments were asked to carry out a reflective task (portraying the size of risk on a bar chart in Experiment 1 and answering a reflective question in Experiment 2). The results showed that active participants rated the likelihood of experiencing possible side effects significantly lower than passive participants (Experiment 1), and that active participants were significantly more satisfied with the information and judged perceived risk to health from taking the medication significantly lower than passive participants (Experiment 2). In both experiments, active participants were significantly more correct in their probability and frequency estimates. The studies demonstrate that active processing of risk information leads to improved understanding of the information given. This has important implications for risk communication. In the context of health, better understanding should lead to improved decision-making and health outcomes. Copyright (C) 2004 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

Patients' understanding of risk associated with medication use: impact of European Commission guidelines and other risk scales

Patients want and need comprehensive and accurate information about their medicines so that they can participate in decisions about their healthcare: In particular, they require information about the likely risks and benefits that are associated with the different treatment options. However, to provide this information in a form that people can readily understand and use is a considerable challenge to healthcare professionals. One recent attempt to standardise the Language of risk has been to produce sets of verbal descriptors that correspond to specific probability ranges, such as those outlined in the European Commission (EC) Pharmaceutical Committee guidelines in 1998 for describing the incidence of adverse effects. This paper provides an overview of a number of studies involving members of the general public, patients, and hospital doctors, that evaluated the utility of the EC guideline descriptors (very common, common, uncommon, rare, very rare). In all studies it was found that people significantly over-estimated the likelihood of adverse effects occurring, given specific verbal descriptors. This in turn resulted in significantly higher ratings of their perceived risks to health and significantly lower ratings of their likelihood of taking the medicine. Such problems of interpretation are not restricted to the EC guideline descriptors. Similar levels of misinterpretation have also been demonstrated with two other recently advocated risk scales (Caiman's verbal descriptor scale and Barclay, Costigan and Davies' lottery scale). In conclusion, the challenge for risk communicators and for future research will be to produce a language of risk that is sufficiently flexible to take into account different perspectives, as well as changing circumstances and contexts of illness and its treatments. In the meantime, we urge the EC and other legislative bodies to stop recommending the use of specific verbal labels or phrases until there is a stronger evidence base to support their use.

The price of risk in construction projects: contingency approximation model (CAM)

Little attention has been focussed on a precise definition and evaluation mechanism for project management risk specifically related to contractors. When bidding, contractors traditionally price risks using unsystematic approaches. The high business failure rate our industry records may indicate that the current unsystematic mechanisms contractors use for building up contingencies may be inadequate. The reluctance of some contractors to include a price for risk in their tenders when bidding for work competitively may also not be a useful approach. Here, instead, we first define the meaning of contractor contingency, and then we develop a facile quantitative technique that contractors can use to estimate a price for project risk. This model will help contractors analyse their exposure to project risks; and help them express the risk in monetary terms for management action. When bidding for work, they can decide how to allocate contingencies strategically in a way that balances risk and reward.

The use of risk registers by project managers

The construction industry is widely recognised as being inherent with risk and uncertainty. This necessitates the need for effective project risk management to achieve the project objectives of time, cost and quality. A popular tool employed in projects to aid in the management of risk is a risk register. This tool documents the project risks and is often employed by the Project Manager (PM) to manage the associated risks on a project. This research aims to ascertain how widely risk registers are used by Project Managers as part of their risk management practices. To achieve this aim entailed interviewing ten PMs, to discuss their use of the risk register as a risk management tool. The results from these interviews indicated the prevalent use of this document and recognised its effectiveness in the management of project risks. The findings identified the front end and feasibility phases of a project as crucial stages for using risk registers, noting it as a vital ingredient in the risk response planning of the decision making process. Moreover, the composition of the risk register was also understood, with an insight into how PMs produce and develop this tool also ascertained. In conclusion, this research signifies the extensive use of the risk register by PMs. A majority of PMs were of the view that risk registers constitute an essential component of their project risk management practices. This suggests a need for further research on the extent to which risk registers actually help PMs to control the risks in a construction project, particularly residual risks, and how this can be improved to minimize deviations from expected outcomes.