scholarly journals Refuting Spurious COVID-19 Treatment Claims Reduces Demand and Misinformation Sharing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas MacFarlane ◽  
Li Qian Tay ◽  
Mark J. Hurlstone ◽  
Ullrich K.H. Ecker
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Claims

Religious Accommodation in the American Workplace

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-47
Author(s):  
Debbie Kaminer
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Religious Discrimination ◽  
Actual Knowledge ◽  
Religious Accommodation ◽  
Disparate Treatment ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
Formal Equality ◽  
First Time ◽  
Treatment Claims ◽  
Important Shift

This article examines how the us Supreme Court’s decision in eeoc v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. represents a shift in the Court’s analysis in religious accommodation cases under §701(j) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a result of this decision lower courts are now likely to provide greater protection to employees requesting accommodation under §701(j) for two reasons. First, Abercrombie held that an employer can be liable for religious discrimination even if it does not have “actual knowledge” of an applicant’s or employee’s need for religious accommodation. Additionally, the Court also determined that religious accommodation claims can be raised as disparate treatment claims, and in doing so emphasized for the first time that §701(j) mandates more than formal equality. This is an important shift since previous federal decisions often relied on formal equality in limiting an employer’s accommodation obligation.

scholarly journals Key Concepts for assessing claims about treatment effects and making well-informed treatment choices

F1000Research ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 1784 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew David Oxman ◽  
Iain Chalmers ◽  
Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Health Professionals ◽  
Treatment Choices ◽  
The Public ◽  
Interactive Applications ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Health Choices ◽  
Informed Treatment ◽  
Treatment Comparisons ◽  
Treatment Claims

Background:The Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts are standards for judgement, or principles for evaluating the trustworthiness of treatment claims and treatment comparisons (evidence) used to support claims, and for making treatment choices. The list of concepts provides a framework, or starting point, for teachers, journalists and other intermediaries for identifying and developing resources (such as longer explanations, examples, games and interactive applications) to help people to understand and apply the concepts. The first version of the list was published in 2015 and has been updated yearly since then. We report here the changes that have been made from when the list was first published up to the current (2018) version.Methods:We developed the IHC Key Concepts by searching the literature and checklists written for the public, journalists, and health professionals; and by considering concepts related to assessing the certainty of evidence about the effects of treatments. We have revised the Key Concepts yearly, based on feedback and suggestions; and learning from using the IHC Key Concepts, other relevant frameworks, and adaptation of the IHC Key Concepts to other types of interventions besides treatments.Results:We have made many changes since the Key Concepts were first published in 2015. There are now 44 Key Concepts compared to the original 32; the concepts have been reorganised from six to three groups; we have added higher-level concepts in each of those groups; we have added short titles; and we have made changes to many of the concepts.Conclusions:We will continue to revise the IHC Key Concepts in response to feedback. Although we and others have found them helpful since they were first published, we anticipate that there are still ways in which they can be further improved. We welcome suggestions for how to do this.

scholarly journals Claims of ‘no difference’ or ‘no effect’ in Cochrane and other systematic reviews

2020 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2019-111257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phoebe Rose Marson Smith ◽  
Lynda Ware ◽  
Clive Adams ◽  
Iain Chalmers
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Significance Testing ◽  
Statistical Significance Testing ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Treatment Claims

Estimates of treatment effects/differences derived from controlled comparisons are subject to uncertainty, both because of the quality of the data and the play of chance. Despite this, authors sometimes use statistical significance testing to make definitive statements that ‘no difference exists between’ treatments. A survey to assess abstracts of Cochrane reviews published in 2001/2002 identified unqualified claims of ‘no difference’ or ‘no effect’ in 259 (21.3%) out of 1212 review abstracts surveyed. We have repeated the survey to assess the frequency of such claims among the abstracts of Cochrane and other systematic reviews published in 2017. We surveyed the 643 Cochrane review abstracts published in 2017 and a random sample of 643 abstracts of other systematic reviews published in the same year. We excluded review abstracts that referred only to a protocol, lacked a conclusion or did not contain any relevant information. We took steps to reduce biases during our survey. 'No difference/no effect' was claimed in the abstracts of 36 (7.8%) of 460 Cochrane reviews and in the abstracts of 13 (6.0%) of 218 other systematic reviews. Incorrect claims of no difference/no effect of treatments were substantially less common in Cochrane reviews published in in 2017 than they were in abstracts of reviews published in 2001/2002. We hope that this reflects greater efforts to reduce biases and inconsistent judgements in the later survey as well as more careful wording of review abstracts. There are numerous other ways of wording treatment claims incorrectly. These must be addressed because they can have adverse effects on healthcare and health research.

Science and Pseudoscience in Communication Disorders

2005 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 172-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Finn ◽  
Anne K. Bothe ◽  
Robin E. Bramlett
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Method ◽  
Communication Disorders ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Current Treatment ◽  
Fast Forword ◽  
Treatment Approaches ◽  
Facilitated Communication ◽  
Treatment Claims ◽  
A Current

Purpose: The purpose of this tutorial is to describe 10 criteria that may help clinicians distinguish between scientific and pseudoscientific treatment claims. The criteria are illustrated, first for considering whether to use a newly developed treatment and second for attempting to understand arguments about controversial treatments. Method: Pseudoscience refers to claims that appear to be based on the scientific method but are not. Ten criteria for distinguishing between scientific and pseudoscientific treatment claims are described. These criteria are illustrated by using them to assess a current treatment for stuttering, the SpeechEasy device. The authors read the available literature about the device and developed a consensus set of decisions about the 10 criteria. To minimize any bias, a second set of independent judges evaluated a sample of the same literature. The criteria are also illustrated by using them to assess controversies surrounding 2 treatment approaches: Fast ForWord and facilitated communication. Conclusions: Clinicians are increasingly being held responsible for the evidence base that supports their practice. The power of these 10 criteria lies in their ability to help clinicians focus their attention on the credibility of that base and to guide their decisions for recommending or using a treatment.

scholarly journals Establishing a library of resources to help people understand key concepts in assessing treatment claims—The “Critical thinking and Appraisal Resource Library” (CARL)

PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. e0178666 ◽  
Author(s):  
John C. Castle ◽  
Iain Chalmers ◽  
Patricia Atkinson ◽  
Douglas Badenoch ◽  
Andrew D. Oxman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Resource Library ◽  
Treatment Claims

scholarly journals Key Concepts for assessing claims about treatment effects and making well-informed treatment choices

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 1784 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew David Oxman ◽  
Iain Chalmers ◽  
Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Health Professionals ◽  
Treatment Choices ◽  
The Public ◽  
Interactive Applications ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Health Choices ◽  
Informed Treatment ◽  
Treatment Comparisons ◽  
Treatment Claims

Background: The Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts are standards for judgement, or principles for evaluating the trustworthiness of treatment claims and treatment comparisons (evidence) used to support claims, and for making treatment choices. The list of concepts provides a framework, or starting point, for teachers, journalists and other intermediaries for identifying and developing resources (such as longer explanations, examples, games and interactive applications) to help people to understand and apply the concepts. The first version of the list was published in 2015 and has been updated yearly since then. We report here the changes that have been made from when the list was first published up to the current (2018) version.Methods: We developed the IHC Key Concepts by searching the literature and checklists written for the public, journalists, and health professionals; and by considering concepts related to assessing the certainty of evidence about the effects of treatments. We have revised the Key Concepts yearly, based on feedback and suggestions; and learning from using the IHC Key Concepts, other relevant frameworks, and adaptation of the IHC Key Concepts to other types of interventions besides treatments.Results: We have made many changes since the Key Concepts were first published in 2015. There are now 44 Key Concepts compared to the original 32; the concepts have been reorganised from six to three groups; we have added higher-level concepts in each of those groups; we have added short titles; and we have made changes to many of the concepts.Conclusions: The IHC Key Concepts have proven useful in designing learning resources, evaluating them, and organising them. We will continue to revise the IHC Key Concepts in response to feedback. We welcome suggestions for how to do this.

scholarly journals Refuting Spurious COVID-19 Treatment Claims Reduces Demand and Misinformation Sharing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas MacFarlane ◽  
Li Qian Tay ◽  
Mark J. Hurlstone ◽  
Ullrich K. H. Ecker
Keyword(s):  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Opportunity Costs ◽  
Practice Recommendations ◽  
Best Practice Guidelines ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
Novel Approach ◽  
Materials Used ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Treatment Claims

The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a surge of health misinformation, which has had serious consequences including direct harm and opportunity costs. We investigated (N = 678) the impact of such misinformation on hypothetical demand (i.e., willingness-to-pay) for an unproven treatment, and propensity to promote (i.e., like or share) misinformation online. This is a novel approach, as previous research has used mainly questionnaire-based measures of reasoning. We also tested two interventions to counteract the misinformation, contrasting a tentative refutation based on materials used by health authorities with an enhanced refutation based on best-practice recommendations. We found prior exposure to misinformation increased misinformation promotion (by 18%). Both tentative and enhanced refutations reduced demand (by 18% and 25%, respectively) as well as misinformation promotion (by 29% and 55%). The fact that enhanced refutations were more effective at curbing promotion of misinformation highlights the need for debunking interventions to follow current best-practice guidelines.

scholarly journals The Norwegian public’s ability to assess treatment claims: results of a cross-sectional study of critical health literacy

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Astrid Dahlgren ◽  
Kjetil Furuseth-Olsen ◽  
Christopher James Rose ◽  
Andrew David Oxman
Keyword(s):  
Health Literacy ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Critical Health Literacy ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Treatment Claims

Background: Few studies have evaluated the ability of the general public to assess the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of healthcare. For the most part, those studies have used self-reported measures of critical health literacy. Methods: We mailed 4500 invitations to Norwegian adults. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of four online tests that included multiple-choice questions that test understanding of Key Concepts people need to understand to assess healthcare claims. They also included questions about intended behaviours and self-efficacy. One of the four tests was identical to one previously used in two randomised trials of educational interventions in Uganda, facilitating comparisons to Ugandan children, parents, and teachers. We adjusted the results using demographic data to reflect the population. Results: A total of 771 people responded. We estimate that at least half of Norwegian adults understand 18 of the 30 Key Concepts (i.e. the adjusted proportion of correct answers was > 50%). On the other hand, less than half understood 13 of the concepts. The results for Norwegian adults were better than the results for Ugandan children in the intervention arm of the trial and parents, and similar to those of Ugandan teachers in the intervention arm of the trial. Based on self-report, most Norwegians are likely to find out the basis of treatment claims, but few consider it easy to assess whether claims are based on research and to assess the trustworthiness of research. Conclusions: Norwegian adults do not understand many concepts that are essential for assessing healthcare claims and making informed choices. This can result in poorly informed decisions, underuse of effective interventions, and overuse of ineffective or harmful interventions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document