MyMedR

Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext What Simon "knows" about cultural differences: The influence of cultural orientation and traffic directionality on spatial compatibility effects

Baess P, Ecker UKH, Janssen SMJ, Jin Z, Bermeitinger C

Mem Cognit, 2023 Apr;51(3):526-542.
PMID: 36180770 DOI: 10.3758/s13421-022-01360-9

Previous research has suggested that culture influences perception and attention. These studies have typically involved comparisons of Westerners with East Asians, motivated by assumed differences in the cultures' self-concept or position on the individualism-collectivism spectrum. However, other potentially important sources of cultural variance have been neglected, such as differences in traffic directionality shaped by the urban spatial environment (i.e., left-hand vs. right-hand traffic). Thus, existing research may potentially place too much emphasis on self-concepts or the individualism-collectivism dimension in explaining observed cultural differences in cognition. The present study investigated spatial cognition using a Simon task and tested participants from four nations (Australia, China, Germany, and Malaysia) that differ in both cultural orientation (collectivistic vs. individualistic) and traffic directionality (left-hand vs. right-hand traffic). The task used two possible reference frames underlying the Simon effect: a body-centered one based on global stimulus position relative to the screen's center versus an object-centered one based on local stimulus position relative to a context object. As expected, all groups showed a reliable Simon effect for both spatial reference frames. However, the global Simon effect was larger in participants from countries with left-hand traffic. In contrast, the local Simon effect was modulated by differences in cultural orientation, with larger effects in participants from collectivistic cultures. This pattern suggests that both sources of cultural variation, viz. cultural orientation and traffic directionality, contribute to differences in spatial cognition in distinct ways.
Correlates of satisfaction with pain treatment in the acute postoperative period: results from the international PAIN OUT registry

Schwenkglenks M, Gerbershagen HJ, Taylor RS, Pogatzki-Zahn E, Komann M, Rothaug J, et al.

Pain, 2014 Jul;155(7):1401-1411.
PMID: 24785269 DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2014.04.021

Patient ratings of satisfaction with their postoperative pain treatment tend to be high even in those with substantial pain. Determinants are poorly understood and have not previously been studied in large-scale, international datasets. PAIN OUT, a European Union-funded acute pain registry and research project, collects patient-reported outcome data on postoperative day 1 using the self-reported International Pain Outcome Questionnaire (IPO), and patient, clinical, and treatment characteristics. We investigated correlates of satisfaction and consistency of effects across centres and countries using multilevel regression modelling. Our sample comprised 16,868 patients (median age 55 years; 55% female) from 42 centres in 11 European countries plus Israel, USA, and Malaysia, who underwent a wide range of surgical procedures, for example, joint, limb, and digestive tract surgeries. Median satisfaction was 9 (interquartile range 7-10) on a 0-10 scale. Three IPO items showed strong associations and explained 35% of the variability present in the satisfaction variable: more pain relief received, higher allowed participation in pain treatment decisions, and no desire to have received more pain treatment. Patient factors and additional IPO items reflecting pain experience (eg, worst pain intensity), pain-related impairment, and information on pain treatment added little explanatory value, partially due to covariate correlations. Effects were highly consistent across centres and countries. We conclude that satisfaction with postoperative pain treatment is associated with the patients' actual pain experience, but more strongly with impressions of improvement and appropriateness of care. To the degree they desire, patients should be provided with information and involved in pain treatment decisions.
Fulltext A Public Health Research Agenda for Managing Infodemics: Methods and Results of the First WHO Infodemiology Conference

Calleja N, AbdAllah A, Abad N, Ahmed N, Albarracin D, Altieri E, et al.

JMIR Infodemiology, 2021 09 15;1(1):e30979.
PMID: 34604708 DOI: 10.2196/30979

Background: An infodemic is an overflow of information of varying quality that surges across digital and physical environments during an acute public health event. It leads to confusion, risk-taking, and behaviors that can harm health and lead to erosion of trust in health authorities and public health responses. Owing to the global scale and high stakes of the health emergency, responding to the infodemic related to the pandemic is particularly urgent. Building on diverse research disciplines and expanding the discipline of infodemiology, more evidence-based interventions are needed to design infodemic management interventions and tools and implement them by health emergency responders.
Objective: The World Health Organization organized the first global infodemiology conference, entirely online, during June and July 2020, with a follow-up process from August to October 2020, to review current multidisciplinary evidence, interventions, and practices that can be applied to the COVID-19 infodemic response. This resulted in the creation of a public health research agenda for managing infodemics.
Methods: As part of the conference, a structured expert judgment synthesis method was used to formulate a public health research agenda. A total of 110 participants represented diverse scientific disciplines from over 35 countries and global public health implementing partners. The conference used a laddered discussion sprint methodology by rotating participant teams, and a managed follow-up process was used to assemble a research agenda based on the discussion and structured expert feedback. This resulted in a five-workstream frame of the research agenda for infodemic management and 166 suggested research questions. The participants then ranked the questions for feasibility and expected public health impact. The expert consensus was summarized in a public health research agenda that included a list of priority research questions.
Results: The public health research agenda for infodemic management has five workstreams: (1) measuring and continuously monitoring the impact of infodemics during health emergencies; (2) detecting signals and understanding the spread and risk of infodemics; (3) responding and deploying interventions that mitigate and protect against infodemics and their harmful effects; (4) evaluating infodemic interventions and strengthening the resilience of individuals and communities to infodemics; and (5) promoting the development, adaptation, and application of interventions and toolkits for infodemic management. Each workstream identifies research questions and highlights 49 high priority research questions.
Conclusions: Public health authorities need to develop, validate, implement, and adapt tools and interventions for managing infodemics in acute public health events in ways that are appropriate for their countries and contexts. Infodemiology provides a scientific foundation to make this possible. This research agenda proposes a structured framework for targeted investment for the scientific community, policy makers, implementing organizations, and other stakeholders to consider.

Filters

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links