In 1974 an article appeared in Science magazine with the dry-sounding title “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases” by a pair of psychologists who were not well known outside their discipline of decision theory. In it Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman introduced the world to Prospect Theory, which mapped out how humans actually behave when faced with decisions about gains and losses, in contrast to how economists assumed that people behave. Prospect Theory turned Economics on its head by demonstrating through a series of ingenious experiments that people are much more concerned with losses than they are with gains, and that framing a choice from one perspective or the other will result in decisions that are exactly the opposite of each other, even if the outcomes are monetarily the same. Prospect Theory led cognitive psychology in a new direction that began to uncover other human biases in thinking that are probably not learned but are part of our brain’s wiring.

Thinking fast and slow.

What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organizations emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes-coercive, mimetic, and normative—leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and dependency, goal ambiguity and technical uncertainty, and professionalization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields (Chinese Translation)

OUTPU T 29 OUTPU T 30 OUTPU T 31 OUTPU T 32 OUTPU T 25 OUTPU T 26 OUTPU T 27 OUTPU T 28 OUTPU T 21 OUTPU T 22 OUTPU T 23 OUTPU T 24 OUTPU T 17 OUTPU T 18 OUTPU T 19 OUTPU T 20 OUTPU T 13 OUTPU T 14 OUTPU T 15 OUTPU T 16 OUTPU T 9 OUTPU T 10 OUTPU T 11 OUTPU T 12 OUTPU T 5 OUTPU T 6 OUTPU T 7 OUTPU T 8 OUTPU T 1 OUTPU T 2 OUTPU T 3 OUTPU T 4 29 30 31 32 25 26 27 28 21 22 23 24 17 18 19 20 13 14 15 16 9

A User’s Guide

This review is a critical summary of research examining gender variations in clinical pain experience. Gender-comparative pain research was identified through Medline and Psychlit searches and references obtained from bibliographies of pertinent papers and books. Review of this research demonstrates that women are more likely than men to experience a variety of recurrent pains. In addition, many women have moderate or severe pains from menstruation, pregnancy and childbirth. In most studies, women report more severe levels of pain, more frequent pain and pain of longer duration than do men. Women may be at greater risk for pain-related disability than men but women also respond more aggressively to pain through health related activities. Women may be more vulnerable than men to unwarranted psychogenic attributions by health care providers for pain. Underlying biological mechanisms of pain and the contribution of psychological and social factors as they contribute to the meaning of pain for women and men warrant greater attention in pain research.

Gender variations in clinical pain experience.

/pdf/social-psychology-handbook-of-basic-principles-5cncpuwpen.pdf

Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles

Bioethics Reenvisioned

Clinical research regularly includes required, nontherapeutic procedures to answer research questions. Optional procedures usually offer minimal or no personal benefit and may involve harms and burdens. Members from the Bangkok SEARCH010/RV254 HIV research cohort of individuals acutely HIV-infected are recruited to six optional procedures varying in invasiveness: leukapheresis, genital secretions collection, lumbar puncture, brain MRI/MRS/DTI, colon biopsy, and lymph node biopsy. We surveyed cohort members about their first recruitment for each procedure to examine factors associated with decision making and attitudes about compensation. 406 members (68%) completed the survey. Reported procedure participation ranged from 71% (MRI) to 27% (lymph node biopsy). Respondents underwent 0-6 procedure types (median 3). Ordinal regression indicated that lower perceived HIV impact and HIV remission trial participation were associated with more procedures completed. Reports of decision difficulty varied, and feeling pressured by research staff was low overall. Notably, those who declined procedures and those who underwent more invasive procedures reported greater decision difficulty and perceived pressure. Most respondents felt compensation amounts were appropriate, although opinions differed by procedure, and for some procedures, between people who agreed and declined. There is limited literature regarding consent to and attitudes about optional research procedures. Researchers must consider how to best support voluntary decisions for procedures with little personal benefit, particularly in lower-income or marginalized populations. In this longitudinal research cohort, perceived pressure to participate may be a concern, although our finding of variation in participation rates corresponding to invasiveness is reassuring. Data from different research contexts would provide important comparators. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2022.101054

Decision making for invasive and non-invasive optional procedures within an acute HIV research cohort in Bangkok

P694: UNC EDGE Genomics: A new undergraduate training program to increase inclusion in the genomics workforce

ABSTRACT:What more can be said about COVID-19 and the social determinants of health? This article describes neglected perspectives that derive from the history of social epidemiology, a field that identifies the social etiology of disease and variations in disease incidence among people differentially located in the social structure. The "discovery" of social determinants of diseases like COVID-19 is nothing new for epidemiology: debate over how to analyze structural determinants versus individual-level risk factors persisted throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. By the late 20th century, research had highlighted fundamental causes of health disparities, such as social conditions and structural racism; these are structural factors, embedded in the social fabric of life. Measurement of structured inequalities within systems faces complex and challenging problems, as research aims to better account for these lived realities at different levels of analysis and as multiple factors merge to influence outcomes (revealed in intersectionality theory). At each of these intersections, there are opportunities for bioethicists to consider their ethical implications. It is imperative to understand the social and ethical roots of our present conversations about health inequalities, in order to partner intelligently with researchers on the forefront of advocating for change.

Gail E. Henderson

Papers

Bioethics Reenvisioned

Decision making for invasive and non-invasive optional procedures within an acute HIV research cohort in Bangkok

P694: UNC EDGE Genomics: A new undergraduate training program to increase inclusion in the genomics workforce

What Bioethicists Need to Know About the Social Determinants of Health—and Why

eP442: Patients’ reaction to and interpretation of secondary genomic findings with limited or no medical actionability