Practitioners and policymakers rely on meta-analyses to inform decision making around the allocation of resources to individuals and organizations. It is therefore paramount to consider the validity of these results. A well-documented threat to the validity of research synthesis results is the presence of publication bias, a phenomenon where studies with large and/or statistically significant effects, relative to studies with small or null effects, are more likely to be published. We investigated this phenomenon empirically by reviewing meta-analyses published in top-tier journals between 1986 and 2013 that quantified the difference between effect sizes from published and unpublished research. We reviewed 383 meta-analyses of which 81 had sufficient information to calculate an effect size. Results indicated that published studies yielded larger effect sizes than those from unpublished studies (d¯ = 0.18, 95% confidence interval [0.10, 0.25]). Moderator analyses revealed that the difference was larger in m...

/pdf/estimating-the-difference-between-published-and-unpublished-3368sdvei5.pdf

Estimating the Difference between Published and Unpublished Effect Sizes: A Meta-Review.

Decision making for others involving risk: A review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE Although the effectiveness and risks of multiple sclerosis (MS) therapies are established, relatively little is known about how these benefits and risks are perceived and weighed by patients. This risk-benefit trade-off is important for clinicians, industry, and regulators to consider when determining which therapies to develop, approve for clinical use, and recommend to individual patients. The primary objective of the present study was to describe individual differences in how MS patients weigh risks and benefits when making treatment decisions. METHOD Two hundred ninety patients with MS completed tasks assessing their willingness to take a hypothetical disease-modifying therapy (DMT) at varying levels of efficacy, side effect probability, and side effect severity. Patients also completed questionnaires assessing MS knowledge, medication beliefs, health care climate, and disease severity. RESULTS Patients with a primary progressive course reported increased DMT willingness compared to patients with relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive courses. Patients were less willing to initiate a DMT across a range of efficacies and side effects if they had never taken a DMT, reported more complementary and alternative health beliefs, or reported a history of discontinuing DMTs due to side effects. More MS knowledge was associated with more willingness to initiate a DMT. CONCLUSIONS The results represent an initial step in understanding how patients with chronic disease balance the risks and benefits of medication initiation. Extension of this research may have implications for pharmaceutical development, physician-patient interaction, adherence intervention, and disease education. (PsycINFO Database Record

How patients with multiple sclerosis weigh treatment risks and benefits.

Vaccination is vital to protect the public against COVID-19. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. We searched a range of databases (Embase, Medline, Psychology & Behavioral Science, PsycInfo, Web of Science and NIH Preprints Portfolio) from March 2020 to July 2021 for studies which reported primary quantitative or qualitative research on interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Outcome measures included vaccination uptake and reported intention to vaccinate. Reviews, position papers, conference abstracts, protocol papers and papers not in English were excluded. The NHLBI quality assessment was used to assess risk of bias. In total, 39 studies across 33 papers met the inclusion criteria. A total of 28 were assessed as good quality. They included interventions relating to communication content, communication delivery, communication presentation, policy or vaccination delivery, with 7 measuring vaccination uptake and 32 measuring vaccination intention. A narrative synthesis was conducted, which highlighted that there is reasonable evidence from studies investigating real behaviour suggesting that personalising communications and sending booking reminders via text message increases vaccine uptake. Findings on vaccination intention are mixed but suggest that communicating uncertainty about the vaccine does not decrease intention, whereas making vaccination mandatory could have a negative impact. Although much of the research used experimental designs, very few measured real behavioural outcomes. Understanding which interventions are most effective amongst vaccine-hesitant populations and in the context of booster vaccinations will be important as vaccine roll outs continue across the world.

/pdf/the-effectiveness-of-interventions-for-increasing-covid-19-3agwnodn.pdf

The Effectiveness of Interventions for Increasing COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake: A Systematic Review

Background 
Are we more risk-averse or risk-seeking when we make decisions on behalf of other people as opposed to ourselves? So far, findings have not been able to provide a clear and consistent answer.


Method 
We propose a meta-analysis to assess whether self-other differences vary according to particular features of the decision. We reviewed 78 effect sizes from 49 studies (7,576 participants).


Results 
There was no overall self-other difference, but there were moderating effects of domain and frame. Decisions in the interpersonal domain were more risk-averse for self than for other. Decisions in the medical domain were more risk-seeking for self than for other. There were no overall self-other differences in the financial domain, however there was a moderating effect of frame: decisions in a gain frame were more risk-averse for self than other whereas decisions in a loss frame were more risk-seeking for self than other. This effect of frame was slightly different overall and in the medical domain, where self-other differences occurred in a loss frame but not in a gain frame.


Conclusion 
Future work should continue to investigate how the specific content and context of the decision impacts self-other differences in order to understand the effects of domain and frame we report.

/pdf/do-our-risk-preferences-change-when-we-make-decisions-for-2nllkggjyc.pdf

Do our risk preferences change when we make decisions for others? A meta-analysis of self-other differences in decisions involving risk.

There is growing evidence that decisions made on behalf of other people differ from the decisions we make for ourselves because we are less affected by the subjective experience of their outcome. As a result, the decisions we make for other people can be more optimal. This experiment investigated surrogate decision making using a probability discounting task where participants made choices between risky and sure options. Psychological distance between the decision maker and the recipient was manipulated by having participants make decisions for themselves, their friend, and another unknown participant. Risk preferences were closer to neutrality (i.e., more consistent with expected value) when making decisions on behalf of another participant than when making decisions for themselves or a friend. We conclude that subjective risk preferences are attenuated in surrogate decision making. Findings are discussed in relation to inconsistencies in the literature and theories of surrogate decision making.

Risk preferences in surrogate decision making

Cultural background might influence knowledge and attitudes regarding autism, influencing willingness to interact. We studied whether beliefs, knowledge, contact, and attitude differed between the UK and Malaysia. With mediation analyses, we studied how these factors influenced willingness to interact. Autism was more often linked to food in the UK, and to upbringing in Malaysia. Knowledge, contact, and acceptance were greater in the UK. When excluding psychology students, Malaysian students were less willing to interact with autistic people. Knowledge and contact appeared to improve acceptance, but acceptance did not mediate the relation between country, beliefs, knowledge, and experience; and willingness to interact. Knowledge and contact regarding autism might improve acceptance in different cultures, but how acceptance could improve interaction is unclear.

/pdf/university-students-notion-of-autism-spectrum-conditions-a-1ithw8u64z.pdf

University Students' Notion of Autism Spectrum Conditions: A Cross-Cultural Study.

Uncertainties pervade our health choices, particularly in the context of a novel pandemic. Despite this, rather little is known about when and how to effectively communicate these uncertainties. The focus in the medical literature so far has been on how patients respond to mentions of uncertainty relating to diagnosis or treatment, showing that these can have detrimental effects on trust and satisfaction. On the other hand, how patients are affected by these communications over time, particularly in the face of conflicting information, has received little attention. This is particularly important in the context a novel pandemic where uncertainty is rife and information changes over time. To fill this gap, we conducted an online study with UK participants on hypothetical communications relating to COVID-19 vaccines. Participants first read a vaccine announcement, which either communicated with certainty or uncertainty, and then received information which conflicted with the announcement. Those who were exposed to the certain announcement reported a greater loss of trust and vaccination intention than those who were exposed to the uncertain announcement. This shows that communicating with unwarranted certainty can backfire in the long-term, whereas communicating uncertainties can protect people from the negative impact of exposure to conflicting information.

/pdf/the-negative-consequences-of-failing-to-communicate-n5kk8x6k7v.pdf

Eleonore Batteux

Papers

The Effectiveness of Interventions for Increasing COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake: A Systematic Review

Do our risk preferences change when we make decisions for others? A meta-analysis of self-other differences in decisions involving risk.

Risk preferences in surrogate decision making

University Students' Notion of Autism Spectrum Conditions: A Cross-Cultural Study.

The negative consequences of failing to communicate uncertainties during a pandemic: The case of COVID-19 vaccines