Biomedical subjects

C Vlek

Publications and source records attributed to C Vlek.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1998

Sustainable development and quality of life: expected effects of prospective changes in economic and environmental conditions.

In the context of "sustainable development", we studied which attributes are important to people's quality of life (QoL) and which changes in QoL people would expect from future economic and environmental improvements or deteriorations. About 200 adult subjects evaluated the relative importance of 22 different QoL attributes. They subsequently indicated expected changes in those attributes, under three different scenarios in which economic and environmental conditions would either improve or deteriorate. On average, subjects judged the QoL attributes "healthy", "family", "environmental quality", "nature" and "safety" to be most important, while "recognition", "comfort", "status" and "spiritual life" were found least important. The most important QoL attributes as well as "security" were judged as more important by women than by men. Also observed were income and age effects on relative attribute importance. Our (Dutch) subjects expected significant and varied negative QoL changes from an environmental-deterioration scenario involving either an improved or a deteriorated economy. In contrast, they had mixed positive-negative QoL expectations about environmental improvement combined with economic deterioration. Subjects high in environmental concern assigned greater weight to "environmental" QoL attributes, and they expected environmental improvement versus deterioration to more strongly affect their QoL-attributes "environmental quality", "nature", "health" and "unity with nature", than did subjects low in environmental concern. We conclude that quality of life can be meaningfully conceived as a multi-attribute value concept, useful for assessing the expected effects of future economic and environmental conditions. Suggestions are given for methodological improvement and for further research.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1996

Effects on Decision Quality of Supporting Multi-attribute Evaluation in Groups

In this study the effectiveness of multi-attribute utility (MAU) decision support in groups is evaluated for personnel selection problems differing in complexity. Subjects were asked to make an initial individual decision with or without MAU decision support. Next individuals formed small groups and were asked to reach a decision about the same problem. Groups received either MAU support or no support. Results show that for relatively simple problems the most effective method is to provide subjects with both individual and group decision support. Here, decision support had a clear impact on subjects' preferences and the level of agreement between group members. In addition, satisfaction with the decision and the decision procedure was relatively high. Overall, decision support improved communication; subjects reported to find the problem easier, to have more influence on the group decision, and to find it easier to express their opinions. For more complex problems, however, decision making without group support (whether preceded by individual support or not) was evaluated most favorably. Individual decision support in this condition was sometimes better than no support; i.e., there was a lower reported problem difficulty, a higher satisfaction with the group decision, and a higher reported influence on the group decision. The effectiveness of group MAU decision support for complex problems was evaluated less favorably.

Journal Article↗

PubMed1987

Risk assessment, risk perception and decision making about courses of action involving genetic risk: an overview of concepts and methods.

Developments in medical diagnostics and shifts in the ethics of human reproduction increasingly present prospective parents with deliberate choice problems involving possible child deficiencies. An adequate handling of such problems may be supported by explicit methodologies for judging risks and making decisions under uncertainty. The paper gives an overview of concepts, models and methods concerning risk analysis, risk perception and "good" decision making. Several different (stimulus) definitions of risk are presented, and it is shown that "perceived risk" (a response-defined concept) may be operationally measured at different levels of an organism's activity. Disputes on the meaning of probability statements are related to differences in the available information basis which may result from a combination of frequentistic/nonfrequentistic data about, and external/internal determination of possible consequences. After a listing of various notions of "acceptable risk", three different approaches towards making good decisions are discussed. The paper concludes with a summary and some suggestions for the improvement of genetic counseling procedures.

Decision Making↗

PubMedDate not supplied

"Could we all be a little more quiet, please?" A behavioural-science commentary on research for a quieter Europe in 2020.

European noise research and policy-making overall not so effective thus far is considered from a behavioural science perspective. First, an overview is given of a recent strategy paper by the EU's CALM network1, focused on perception-related and emission-related research. After a summary of noise effects on human well-being, environmental noise problems are discussed as socio-technical problems where the social part is just as important as the technical part. The behavioural and social components of noise emission, transmission, exposure and effect are explicated. Environmental stress is considered as a double-sided phenomenon involving subjects' threat appraisal and their coping appraisal, each comprising specific underlying variables. From the wider perspective explained, several comments are given on the research strategy CALM is proposing. It is argued that: increasing motorisation undermines noise abatement; dose-response relationships reflect only part of the problem; more attention is needed for the causative behaviour of noisy actors; technical noise-reduction measures are necessary but insufficient; and that noise as a daily stressor should be treated in the context of people's overall quality of life. Specific suggestions are listed for EU noise research and policy-making. One conclusion is that more effective and visionary European noise policies may well be started tomorrow and need not depend on 15 years more research as envisaged in the CALM strategy paper.

Adaptation, Psychological↗