University of York

About: University of York is a education organization based out in York, York, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 22089 authors who have published 56925 publications receiving 2458285 citations. The organization is also known as: York University & Ebor..

Making by making strange: Defamiliarization and the design of domestic technologies

Abstract: This article argues that because the home is so familiar, it is necessary to make it strange, or defamiliarize it, in order to open its design space. Critical approaches to technology design are of both practical and social importance in the home. Home appliances are loaded with cultural associations such as the gendered division of domestic labor that are easy to overlook. Further, homes are not the same everywhere---even within a country. Peoples' aspirations and desires differ greatly across and between cultures. The target of western domestic technology design is often not the user, but the consumer. Web refrigerators that create shopping lists, garbage cans that let advertisers know what is thrown away, cabinets that monitor their contents and order more when supplies are low are central to current images of the wireless, digital home of the future. Drawing from our research in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Asia, we provide three different narratives of defamiliarization. A historical reading of American kitchens provides a lens with which to scrutinize new technologies of domesticity, an ethnographic account of an extended social unit in England problematizes taken-for-granted domestic technologies, and a comparative ethnography of the role of information and communication technologies in the daily lives of urban Asia's middle classes reveals the ways in which new technologies can be captured and domesticated in unexpected ways. In the final section of the article, we build on these moments of defamiliarization to suggest a broad set of challenges and strategies for design in the home.

A Four-Component Model of Procedural Justice: Defining the Meaning of a “Fair” Process

Abstract: Two studies test the prediction of the four-component model of procedural justice that people evaluate the fairness of group procedures using four distinct types of judgment. The model hypothesizes that people are influenced by two aspects of the formal procedures of the group: those aspects that relate to decision making and those that relate to the quality of treatment that group members are entitled to receive under the rules. In addition, people are hypothesized to be separately influenced by two aspects of the authorities with whom they personally deal: the quality of decision making by those authorities and the quality of the treatment that they receive from them. The results of two studies support the hypothesis of the four-component model by finding that all four of the procedural judgments identified by the model contribute to overall evaluations of the fairness of group procedures.

Is the binding of visual features in working memory resource-demanding?

Abstract: The episodic buffer component of working memory is assumed to play a role in the binding of features into chunks. A series of experiments compared memory for arrays of colors or shapes with memory for bound combinations of these features. Demanding concurrent verbal tasks were used to investigate the role of general attentional processes, producing load effects that were no greater on memory for feature combinations than for the features themselves. However, the binding condition was significantly less accurate with sequential rather than simultaneous presentation, especially for items earlier in the sequence. The findings are interpreted as evidence of a relatively automatic but fragile visual feature binding mechanism in working memory. Implications for the concept of an episodic buffer are discussed.

Capitation, salary, fee-for-service and mixed systems of payment: effects on the behaviour of primary care physicians.

Abstract: Background It is widely believed that the method of payment of physicians may affect their clinical behaviour. Although payment systems may be used to achieve policy objectives (e.g. cost containment or improved quality of care), little is known about the effects of different payment systems in achieving these objectives. Objectives To evaluate the impact of different methods of payment (capitation, salary, fee for service and mixed systems of payment) on the clinical behaviour of primary care physicians (PCPs). Search methods We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register; the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register; MEDLINE (1966 to October 1997); BIDS EMBASE (1980 to October 1997); BIDS ISI (1981 to October 1997); EconLit (1969 to October 1997); HealthStar (1975 to October 1997) Helmis (1984 to October 1997); health economics discussion paper series of the Universities of York, Aberdeen, Sheffield, Bristol, Brunel, and McMaster; Swedish Institute of Health Economics; RAND corporation; and reference lists of articles. Selection criteria Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series analyses of interventions comparing the impact of capitation, salary, fee for service (FFS) and mixed systems of payment on primary care physician satisfaction with working environment; cost and quantity of care; type and pattern of care; equity of care; and patient health status and satisfaction. Data collection and analysis Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Main results Four studies were included involving 640 primary care physicians and more than 6400 patients. There was considerable variation in study setting and the range of outcomes measured. FFS resulted in more primary care visits/contacts, visits to specialists and diagnostic and curative services but fewer hospital referrals and repeat prescriptions compared with capitation. Compliance with a recommended number of visits was higher under FFS compared with capitation payment. FFS resulted in more patient visits, greater continuity of care, higher compliance with a recommended number of visits, but patients were less satisfied with access to their physician compared with salaried payment. Authors' conclusions It is noteworthy that so few studies met the inclusion criteria. There is some evidence to suggest that the method of payment of primary care physicians affects their behaviour, but the findings' generalisability is unknown. More evaluations of the effect of payment systems on PCP behaviour are needed, especially in terms of the relative impact of salary versus capitation payments.