PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Gene Rowe

Publications and source records attributed to Gene Rowe.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Perceptions of food risk management among key stakeholders: results from a cross-European study.

In designing and implementing appropriate food risk management strategies, it is important to examine how key stakeholders perceive both the practice and effectiveness of food risk management. The objective of this study is to identify similarities and differences in perceptions of, and attitudes to, food risk management practices held by consumers and experts with an interest in food safety. Focus groups were conducted in five European countries chosen for their (hypothesised) cultural differences in attitudes towards risk: Denmark, Germany, Greece, Slovenia and the UK. Content analysis was carried out on the resulting texts and (sub) categories were identified within the analysis framework to facilitate the capture of emerging themes. Five key themes were identified as common to the perceptions of both consumers and experts, although these are not represented in the same way by both groups. These key themes are: (1) efforts made by the responsible authorities to manage food risks; (2) responsibility for prevention and management of food risks; (3) how priorities are established within regulatory systems; (4) scientific progress and its implications for food risk management; and (5) media attention and food safety incidents. Although some similarities emerged between the groups, differences were also identified. For example, experts appeared to be highly negative about media influences, whereas consumers appeared more indifferent about media influences and motives. These different perspectives need to be addressed in order to reduce the perceptual distance between key stakeholders, and in particular, to enhance consumer confidence in the food risk management system. Based on the study findings, recommendations for food risk management policies are outlined.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Using surveys in public participation processes for risk decision making: the case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public debate.

This article takes as its case study the "GM Nation?" public debate, a major participation process on the commercialization of agricultural biotechnology, which occurred in Britain during the summer of 2003. We investigate possible self-selection biases in over 36,000 open questionnaire responses on the risks and benefits of genetically modified crops and food obtained during GM Nation? A comparison sample of equivalent responses from a statistically representative sample (n = 1,363) of the British general public obtained shortly after the conclusion of the debate is reported. This comparison shows that the GM Nation? open responses were indeed not fully representative of British "public opinion" regarding agricultural biotechnology. Rather, such opinion is not a unitary whole, but fragmented, with considerable ambivalence coexisting alongside outright opposition to GM agriculture. The methodological implications for multistage participation processes are discussed: in particular, the need to anticipate outcomes of complex design decisions, and to include representative public surveys as standard where measures of broader public attitudes to risk are an important objective.

Agriculture↗
PubMed2004

Assessing patients' preferences for treatments for angina using a modified repertory grid method.

A current popular theme in medicine concerns whether and how patients should be involved in treatment choice. Assuming patient involvement is desirable, how should one go about eliciting preferences? A variety of quantitative and qualitative methods exist that may be used for this purpose, one of which is the repertory grid method. This method involves eliciting constructs (reasons) for preferences through comparing sets of three options. This method allows the structured elicitation of the reasons behind individual preferences, but also, when used with generalised procrustes analysis (GPA), allows aggregation of individual data to reveal general preference patterns. In this study the repertory grid method was used to examine patient preferences for angina treatments with the goal of, first, gaining some understanding of general patterns of patient preference, and second, examining the likely utility of the technique in this setting. A sample of 21 patients with mild and stable angina from two general practices in Norfolk, UK was interviewed using the repertory grid method to elicit the constructs underlying their preferences amongst seven angina treatments (including 'no treatment'). Individualised questionnaires were then produced and sent to the patients for self-completion, which required rating the extent to which each construct was relevant for each treatment (scored on visual analogue rating scales). Analysis of the ratings, using GPA, showed that the constructs clustered around two dimensions: 'some treatment' versus 'no treatment', and drug treatment versus surgical treatment. While some treatment was generally preferred to no treatment, individuals varied in preference for drug treatments or surgical treatments. Although the latter were generally perceived as 'effective' they were also perceived, for example, as 'invasive', 'frightening', related to 'negative experiences', and being more appropriate for when symptoms are severe ('proportionate'). We consider the implications of these results for involving patients in choosing amongst treatments.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

How can genetically modified foods be made publicly acceptable?

A recent study by Lusk suggests that consumers might voluntarily pay more for a genetically modified (GM) food than a non-GM equivalent if made aware of the possible health benefits. However, other research indicates that the acceptability of novel hazards is affected by a variety of factors, in addition to benefits, and that making agricultural biotechnology publicly acceptable will be more complex than indicated by the results from Lusk's study.

Attitude to Health↗
PubMed2004

Reasons underpinning patients' preferences for various angina treatments.

OBJECTIVE: To elicit patients' preferences for the treatment of angina. DESIGN: Angina patients were interviewed in order to elicit their personal reasons underlying preferences for various treatment options. Interviews followed a general repertory grid technique, in which seven treatment options were presented to patients in triads. Treatments considered ranged from medication to invasive revascularization therapies, with a 'no treatment' option. SETTING: Two general practices in Norwich, Norfolk. SUBJECTS: Twenty-one patients with diagnosed angina, which was both mild and stable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Treatment preferences verbalized by patients during interview, and the underlying reasons for these. RESULTS: Attitudes voiced towards the range of treatments for angina were diverse; 27 different reasons underlying patients' preferences were identified. Patients' preferences were largely justified by reasons associated with the conditional effectiveness or otherwise of treatments. When presented with treatment triads, medication (drug) treatments were over 2.5 times more likely to be chosen as a most preferred option than invasive or surgical treatments. Although surgical treatments were generally considered to be 'effective', it was perceived that they were more appropriate for situations when the condition became life-threatening. There were occasions, however, when preferences were driven by other reasons, such as a desire to avoid surgery because it was perceived negatively as 'invasive' and 'frightening'. Drug treatments were viewed as 'quick', 'easy' and reversible. Personal experiences of the effectiveness or otherwise of treatments were frequently cited as reasons for stated preferences. However, patients often commented that they would prefer the doctor to make the decision about their treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients choices among treatments was largely driven by perceptions of their effectiveness or otherwise. Although surgery was perceived as 'effective' it was also seen as conditionally so, dependent upon severity of the condition - which is not necessarily the case, as the risks of adverse events and surgical complications increase for emergency cases. As such, access to better information about the effectiveness and timeliness of interventions is needed. Although respondents held anxieties about treatment, particularly invasive or surgical treatments, fewer choices were driven by emotional and lifestyle factors unrelated to 'effectiveness', such as fear or ease of treatment.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

An empirical test of the relative validity of expert and lay judgments of risk.

This article investigates how accurately experts (underwriters) and lay persons (university students) judge the risks posed by life-threatening events Only one prior study (Slovic, Fischhoff, & Lichtenstein, 1985) has previously investigated the veracity of expert versus lay judgments of the magnitude of risk. In that study, a heterogeneous grouping of 15 experts was found to judge, using marginal estimations, a variety of risks as closer to the true annual frequencies of death than convenience samples of the lay population. In this study, we use a larger, homogenous sample of experts performing an ecologically valid task. We also ask our respondents to assess frequencies and relative frequencies directly, rather than ask for a "risk" estimate--a response mode subject to possible qualitative attributions-as was done in the Slovic et al. study. Although we find that the experts outperformed lay persons on a number of measures, the differences are small, and both groups showed similar global biases in terms of: (1) overestimating the likelihood of dying from a condition (marginal probability) and of dying from a condition given that it happens to you (conditional probability), and (2) underestimating the ratios of marginal and conditional likelihoods between pairs of potentially lethal events. In spite of these scaling problems, both groups showed quite good performance in ordering the lethal events in terms of marginal and conditional likelihoods. We discuss the nature of expertise using a framework developed by Bolger and Wright (1994), and consider whether the commonsense assumption of the superiority of expert risk assessors in making magnitude judgments of risk is, in fact, sensible.

Expert Testimony↗