China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Evidence and the qualitative research analogous structure
Published in Martin Lipscomb, Exploring Evidence-based Practice, 2015
German judges read a detailed description of a case, then rolled a pair of dice which (unknown to them) were loaded so that every roll resulted in a 3 or a 9. They were then asked how long a prison sentence they would give the offender concerned. On average, those who rolled a 9 gave her eight months; those who rolled a 3 gave her five months (Englich et al. 2006). The judges attached no ‘meaning’ to the dice roll but it clearly influenced their decisions. This illustrates the anchoring effect (Kahneman 2011), in which irrelevant environmental cues influence the outcome of a judgment or action.
Do general practitioners record alcohol abuse in the electronic medical records? A comparison of survey and medical record data
Published in Current Medical Research and Opinion, 2018
L. Abidi, A. Oenema, M. van den Akker, D. van de Mheen
One explanation for our findings may, thus, be that GPs do not always register patients with alcohol abuse in medical records due to the stigma related to alcohol abuse, leading to registration avoidance (e.g. a conscious decision of the GP to not register the patient with the label “alcohol misuse”). The ICPC code P15 covers a broad range of problems including mild disorders (problematic alcohol use or binge drinking) and severe disorders or conditions (alcohol dependence, delirium tremens, syndrome of Wernicke-Korsakoff). Having the severe conditions such as dependence in this ICPC code can be regarded as an anchoring effect and might deter GPs from recording due to the associated stigma. Since ICPC diagnoses in electronic medical files can be shared between medical/health facilities, patients may fear that health professionals will see or treat them as “alcoholics”. To increase not only proper registration, but also healthcare seeking behavior among patients that suffer from alcohol abuse, de-stigmatization of alcohol abuse is, therefore, important. Registration avoidance may also play a role because primary care in The Netherlands generally does not treat alcohol use disorders, although there is more attention to prevention through screening and assessment. It could be the case that GPs find it difficult to ask about alcohol use because they find it difficult to deal with alcohol problems. The lack of low-threshold referral options to a specialized treatment center or addiction specialist for further assessment and treatment also makes it difficult.
Subconscious performance goals: Investigating the moderating effect of negative goal-discrepancy feedback
Published in Human Performance, 2018
Second, we carried out comparable analyses to investigate our competing hypotheses about an interaction effect of subconscious goals in combination with comparison feedback that indicated a negative discrepancy between one’s own and others’ performance. We conducted a 2 (negative personal feedback, negative personal feedback + LP) × 2 (prime, no prime) ANCOVA with self-efficacy as the dependent variable. Participants with higher goals reported higher self-efficacy beliefs (p < .001, partial η2 = .70), but no effect for pretest performance was evident (p = .23). In addition, a main effect was visible for feedback, F(1, 54) = 4.31, p = .04, partial η2 = .07. Participants who, in addition to having received negative personal feedback, had been told that others had scored higher than they had reported higher self-efficacy beliefs. This effect might best be interpreted in terms of an anchoring effect of the provided normative information as prior studies have supported the notion that reference information serves as a strong anchor for self-efficacy beliefs (Johnson et al., 1996). Furthermore, the results support an interaction effect of priming and feedback in these four experimental conditions, F(1, 54) = 7.63, p = .01, partial η2 = 12. In line with our prediction in H3.2a, when participants had been told that others had scored higher, those holding subconscious goals reported higher levels of self-efficacy (58.57) compared with those not holding subconscious goals (52.34). Participants who had merely been told that they had not reached their personal goal reported higher self-efficacy beliefs when not holding subconscious goals (53.61 vs. 49.24; Figure 2a). A comparable pattern of results was visible for performance (Figure 2b). Results of an analog 2 × 2 ANCOVA with performance as the dependent variable again revealed that pretest performance (p < .01, partial η2 = .41) and personal goal level (p < .01, partial η2 = .19) were significant predictors of current performance. No main effects on performance were visible for subconscious goals, F(1, 54) = .16, p = .69, or feedback, F(1, 54) = .17, p = .68. However, a significant interaction emerged, F(1, 54) = 9.04, p < .01, partial η2 = 14, that provided support for H3.2b. In line with the idea that subconscious goals help people to focus attention back on the task level in a situation of severe goal discrepancies or failures, in the LP condition, participants holding subconscious goals clearly outperformed (67.11) those without such goals (61.99).