China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Handling Internal and External Biases:
Published in Christopher H. Schmid, Theo Stijnen, Ian R. White, Handbook of Meta-Analysis, 2020
Rebecca M. Turner, Nicky J. Welton, Hayley E. Jones, Jelena Savović
with between-study variance in bias, κ2, and where the mean bias also follows the consistency equations: (Section 10.5.6). In order to be able to identify the bias parameters, we need to make some simplifying assumptions on the mean biases. One possibility is that the mean bias is the same for all active treatments which are compared with a standard or placebo treatment 1 (“active vs. placebo” trials), so that It is less clear what to assume about bias in trials which make comparisons between active treatments. One approach might be to assume a mean bias of 0 for active versus active comparisons, based on the assumption that the mean bias against placebo is the same for the two active treatments. An alternative is to estimate a separate mean bias term which is the same for all active versus active comparisons (Dias et al., 2010), but a judgment as to which direction the bias would act is necessary. One way to do this is to assume the average bias is always in favor of the newer treatment (“optimism bias”) (Salanti et al., 2010; Song et al., 2008).
Beach safety education: A behavioural change approach
Published in Mike Tipton, Adam Wooler, The Science of Beach Lifeguarding, 2018
However, it must also be noted that if the audience perceive that the educational message is directed at other people, perhaps a more vulnerable group of people, they may not perceive it to apply to them and it may reinforce their own ‘optimism bias’. One study [19] came to the following conclusion: Optimistic bias may represent one of the biggest barriers to the impact of effective risk communication if people believe that the information is directed towards a vulnerable other person, rather than the self, they are unlikely to pay attention to the risk information.(p. 768)
Hypothetical consent
Published in Andreas Müller, Peter Schaber, The Routledge Handbook of the Ethics of Consent, 2018
Such skepticism has its advocates. The most prominent argument for the skeptical position is the central topic of section 9.2. Discussion of it also requires examination of the difficulty, identified above, of specifying how, exactly, to formulate the counterfactual that is to be assessed for truth in determining whether or not someone hypothetically consented. Which possible worlds are relevant? Imagine someone so subject to optimism bias as to invariably refuse medical treatment; he always thinks he will heal without aid. Is such a person incapable of hypothetical consent to medical treatment? Must we ask what he would consent to, given his optimism bias, or ought we to set the bias aside when asking the hypothetical question, asking instead what he would do if he were not biased in this way? Without confidence that there are answers to questions of this kind, we might be skeptics about hypothetical consent.
Mask On, Mask Off: Risk Perceptions for COVID-19 and Compliance with COVID-19 Safety Measures
Published in Behavioral Medicine, 2023
Daniel W. Snook, Wojciech Kaczkowski, Ari D. Fodeman
This approach has precedent in public health literature, which conventionally states that people are inherently self-interested when it comes to health behaviors; therefore, messages emphasizing personal risk are more effective than messages focusing on the societal health consequences.12 Although other research indicates that people do not always act solely based on their self-interest and often choose to forgo personal gains to help others,37 such pro-sociality is strongest when people share close bonds, like kinship and friendship. People may perceive messages asking them to perform a health behavior for the sake of the greater good through the lens that the risk is actually to others, rather than themselves or their loved ones. Various hypotheses, from social psychological (i.e., just world fallacy)38 to neurological (i.e., optimism bias)39 may explain such an effect. In addition, the awareness of a general risk is often not sufficient to elicit a significant change.40 Motivation to change a health behavior requires awareness of the personal risk associated with one’s actions.12 Thus, researchers argue that individual risk perception, or feeling personally at risk, effectively shapes health behaviors.41
Advancing Medicine Ethically: Important Considerations for Innovative Practice
Published in The American Journal of Bioethics, 2019
Sarah Haines, Michael Savic, Adrian Carter
Additionally, these patients are more likely to experience optimism bias, where they overestimate the benefit of an untested treatment and also underestimate the risks (Sharot 2011). This is particularly salient in cases of experimental interventions aimed at treating intractable conditions, where patients are desperate for a treatment that is seen as a “last resort” (Bell et al. 2009). A study of clinicians providing deep brain stimulation, an invasive neurosurgical procedure, for degenerative movement disorders reported that managing patients’ unrealistic expectation of treatment efficacy was the greatest challenge they faced (Bell et al. 2010). Even when strict informed consent protocols are followed to facilitate a realistic understanding of treatment outcomes, patient hope is so entrenched that this explicit information is often unable to mitigate unrealistic expectations of likely treatment outcomes (Bell et al. 2010). Therapeutic misconception, optimism bias, and hope significantly impact patients’ ability to make a truly informed decision regarding their treatment (Horng and Grady 2003).
COVID-19 vaccination: ethical issues regarding mandatory vaccination for healthcare providers
Published in Pathogens and Global Health, 2021
Alireza Hamidian Jahromi, Jenna Rose Stoehr, Clayton Thomason
Finally, widespread misinformation has likely contributed to vaccine hesitancy and mistrust. There has been an abundance of false information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic throughout its duration. HCPs have been found to have similar concerns to the general public regarding vaccine safety and efficacy, as well as the severity of the disease [4]. In one Israeli study, the rate of vaccine acceptance was higher in physicians, in internal medicine, and for HCPs who worked with COVID-19 patients. Thus, there may be increased vaccine hesitancy in HCPs with less direct experience with COVID-19. This characteristic may lend itself to optimism bias, where individuals underestimate a particular health risk for themselves and believe the risk is higher for others [3].