What do patients want to know? An empirical approach to explanation generation and validation

This article describes an empirical, user-centred approach to explanation design. It reports three studies that investigate what patients want to know when they have been prescribed medication. The question is asked in the context of the development of a drug prescription system called OPADE. The system is aimed primarily at improving the prescribing behaviour of physicians, but will also produce written explanations for indirect users such as patients. In the first study, a large number of people were presented with a scenario about a visit to the doctor, and were asked to list the questions that they would like to ask the doctor about the prescription. On the basis of the results of the study, a categorization of question types was developed in terms of how frequently particular questions were asked. In the second and third studies a number of different explanations were generated in accordance with this categorization, and a new sample of people were presented with another scenario and were asked to rate the explanations on a number of dimensions. The results showed significant differences between the different explanations. People preferred explanations that included items corresponding to frequently asked questions in study 1. For an explanation to be considered useful, it had to include information about side effects, what the medication does, and any lifestyle changes involved. The implications of the results of the three studies are discussed in terms of the development of OPADE's explanation facility.

The ASSET intercomparison of ozone analyses: method and first results

This paper aims to summarise the current performance of ozone data assimilation (DA) systems, to show where they can be improved, and to quantify their errors. It examines 11 sets of ozone analyses from 7 different DA systems. Two are numerical weather prediction (NWP) systems based on general circulation models (GCMs); the other five use chemistry transport models (CTMs). The systems examined contain either linearised or detailed ozone chemistry, or no chemistry at all. In most analyses, MIPAS (Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding) ozone data are assimilated; two assimilate SCIAMACHY (Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Chartography) observations instead. Analyses are compared to independent ozone observations covering the troposphere, stratosphere and lower mesosphere during the period July to November 2003. Biases and standard deviations are largest, and show the largest divergence between systems, in the troposphere, in the upper-troposphere/lower-stratosphere, in the upper-stratosphere and mesosphere, and the Antarctic ozone hole region. However, in any particular area, apart from the troposphere, at least one system can be found that agrees well with independent data. In general, none of the differences can be linked to the assimilation technique (Kalman filter, three or four dimensional variational methods, direct inversion) or the system (CTM or NWP system). Where results diverge, a main explanation is the way ozone is modelled. It is important to correctly model transport at the tropical tropopause, to avoid positive biases and excessive structure in the ozone field. In the southern hemisphere ozone hole, only the analyses which correctly model heterogeneous ozone depletion are able to reproduce the near-complete ozone destruction over the pole. In the upper-stratosphere and mesosphere (above 5 hPa), some ozone photochemistry schemes caused large but easily remedied biases. The diurnal cycle of ozone in the mesosphere is not captured, except by the one system that includes a detailed treatment of mesospheric chemistry. These results indicate that when good observations are available for assimilation, the first priority for improving ozone DA systems is to improve the models. The analyses benefit strongly from the good quality of the MIPAS ozone observations. Using the analyses as a transfer standard, it is seen that MIPAS is similar to 5% higher than HALOE (Halogen Occultation Experiment) in the mid and upper stratosphere and mesosphere (above 30 hPa), and of order 10% higher than ozonesonde and HALOE in the lower stratosphere (100 hPa to 30 hPa). Analyses based on SCIAMACHY total column are almost as good as the MIPAS analyses; analyses based on SCIAMACHY limb profiles are worse in some areas, due to problems in the SCIAMACHY retrievals.