Is Preregistration Worthwhile? A Survey on Personal Experiences

The preregistration of research protocols and analysis plans is a main reform innovation to counteract confirmation bias in the social and behavioral sciences. While theoretical reasons to preregister are frequently discussed in the literature, the individually experienced advantages and disadvantages of this method remain largely unexplored. The goal of this exploratory study was to identify the benefits and challenges of preregistration from the researcher's perspective. To this aim, we surveyed 355 researchers, 299 of whom had used preregistration in their own work. The researchers indicated the experienced or expected effects of preregistration on their workflow. The results show that experiences and expectations are mostly positive. Researchers in our sample believe that implementing preregistration improves or is likely to improve the quality of their projects, and that preregistration makes it easier to avoid questionable research practices. Criticism of preregistration is primarily related to the increase in work-related stress and the overall duration of the project. The majority of researchers with experience in preregistration reported that the benefits outweigh the challenges. However, the majority of researchers without preregistration would not consider preregistration for future projects or recommend the practice to colleagues. Our interpretation of the results is that preregistration can have positive side-effects as it adds an extra preparatory step in researchers' workflow, thus requiring researchers to think through the theoretical and practical aspects of their project.

Digging deeper: exploring chiropractors online claims about non-musculoskeletal disorders

Background Some chiropractors suggest that chiropractic treatment is appropriate for health issues other than musculoskeletal problems. The prevalence of such claims on individual clinic websites has previously been reported as approximately one-in-four in Denmark. The underlying rationales for such claims may reflect convictions about traditional chiropractic subluxations paradigms, but are not self-evident and has not previously been studied. Methods An exploratory qualitative case interview study of Danish chiropractors with websites which contain claims about chiropractic efficacy in the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Websites were identified from a nation wide random sample (57%) of all chiropractic clinic websites. Results Of the original 139 websites, 36 were identified as mentioning non-MSK conditions. When revisited, 19 of those clinic websites still mentioned non-MSK disorders and were contacted. Eleven (11) declined our invitation to participate. Interviews were conducted with the responsible chiropractor from each of the remaining 8 clinics. Five distinct themes were identified in the rationales for treating non-musculoskeletal disorders: ‘Positive side-effects,’ ‘Experience,’ ‘Web page,’ ‘Communication’ and ‘Conviction.’ Conclusions A minority of Danish chiropractic websites suggest that non-musculoskeletal disorders are within the chiropractic scope of practice. Those that do, do so for varying reasons—poor communication and website maintenance were commonly cited problems. An explicitly stated adherence to traditional chiropractic subluxations concepts was uncommon. By contrast, a more tempered rationale that suggested a potential beneficial side-effect of chiropractic on non-musculoskeletal health issues were more common and was typically presented in softer-language and/or with some reservations.

Protecting Our Future: What Contribution Can I Make?

A)The crises related to climate and the economy endanger future and current generations, but altering the small impact or minimal emissions of an individual person is-because of the failure of political coordination-not the best way to overcome these crises. B) When we act as individuals to act as stopgaps for policy to minimise the mountain of problems, the following applies: We should not waste our energies on limited involvements in small, primarily symbolic collaborations but should instead endeavour to make the biggest difference of which we are capable with regard to improving the world. C) We make the biggest difference when our limited budget for improving the world is used against poverty, for example, and combatting poverty is precisely what brings positive side effects with regard to human rights and the protection of the climate, animals and species. For example, support for poor farmers in rain forests can save those rain forests. Every CO2 calculator demonstrates that commitment to the Third World is up to 50 times more efficient than personal emissions reductions.

Loneliness vs. Solitude: Recognizing the Difference for ourselves and for our Clients in Light of COVID-19

During COVID-19 the practice of social distancing has affected society in various ways. There is still much to learn about the harmful effects of isolation due to social distancing on societal mental health, however, others have noted potentially positive side effects from social distancing such as the observance of solitude (Levine, 2020; Mercier et al., 2021). Solitude and loneliness are distinct experiences (Melvin, 2021). This point of view article contends that Christian social workers should consider the ramifications of both loneliness and solitude in light of COVID-19. This article utilizes Christian scriptures and current literature to define and discuss the differences between loneliness and solitude. There is also a discussion throughout the article about how Christian social workers can recognize and utilize these concepts in their practice with clients and in their own self-care.

A Silver Hope in the Dreadful Pandemic: Shift towards a Healthier Lifestyle, Hygiene and Cleanliness

The COVID-19 pandemic has spread its terror globally for over a year now. There is no continent that has been spared by this scourge. And perhaps a few small countries with no reported cases. Regardless, it is an irrefutable fact that this novel coronavirus pandemic has shaken the pillars of human civilization. For those unaware or living under a rock since the past year or so, the disease is caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. The first cases were reported to the World Health Organisation as a cluster of pneumonia from unknown causes from Wuhan, China on the 31st December, 2019. And, thus began its reign of terror, spreading across the world, like hot cakes sold out in a carnival. That being said, humanity has suffered a lot at the hands of the pandemic. Innumerous deaths, sufferings, unending lockdowns and curfews, social problems, people losing their livelihoods and the list goes on. It is, thus, easy to give in to the mood of gloom and doom with all that is going on around us. However, just as with anything, there is a side too, that is scarcely talked about. There have also been some positive impacts of this pandemic that one couldn’t have foreseen beforehand. So, without further ado, below we have covered a few positive side effects of this curse of a pandemic!

Can UN Peacekeeping Promote Environmental Quality?

This research focuses on a positive, and previously largely unknown, implication of United Nations (UN) peacekeeping: better environmental quality. While maintaining international peace and security remains the main goal of peacekeeping operations, we contend that they can also be linked to environmentally friendly outcomes. Mission mandates and UN policies increasingly comprise actions that potentially promote environmental quality. At the same time, positive side effects on the environment materialize due to the cooperation with and activities of other UN bodies. The empirical analyses, also correcting for the likely non-random assignment of peace missions and employing several alternative outcome measures, suggest that UN peace missions are indeed substantively associated with better environmental quality. This research has important implications for our understanding of peacekeeping operations, and it contributes to the literatures on the (unintended) consequences of peacekeeping as well as environmental politics.

Mindfulness “in” Education as a Form of Iatrogenesis

Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) can result in positive “side effects,” such as concentration and individual well-being, highly desirable to schools operating within a neoliberalist agenda emphasizing performativity. However, employing a critical literature review, we argue that adverse side effects also occur, though under-researched. We engage critical and systems theories, within a broader complexity paradigm, to show how MBIs manifest as a form of “iatrogenesis,” whereby a “sleight of hand” occurs, offsetting systemic fallibility as individual culpability. Iatrogenesis provides both “cancer” and “cure,” the source of much stress and the means to cope, leaving systems under-critiqued whilst the individual is expected to adjust to this logic. Guised like this, MBIs may do more harm than good, obfuscating deeper transformation of self and society. We conclude by uniting with those who argue the need to embrace more authentic and holistic versions of mindfulness for individual and social transformation to occur.

Information About the Optimism of a Placebo/Nocebo Provider and Placebo/Nocebo Side Effects

BackgroundResearch has demonstrated that personality characteristics, such as optimism are associated with placebo/nocebo responding. The present study investigated whether written information about the optimism of a placebo/nocebo provider can influence the occurrence of reported placebo/nocebo side effects.MethodWe analyzed data from 201 females (mean age = 26 years) who participated in a “clinical study on a new massage oil with stone clover extract.” The oil (sunflower oil) was introduced as either eliciting a negative side effect (unpleasant itching; “nocebo oil”) or a positive side effect (pleasant tingling; “placebo oil”). The administration of the oil was combined with written information about the maker of the product. The oil maker was either portrayed as a very optimistic person or no personal information was provided (only the company name). The participants had no personal contact with the experimenter and received all materials and instructions per post.ResultsThe participants reported more frequent and intense itching when they received a nocebo suggestion compared to a placebo suggestion. Positive tingling sensations were reported more frequently than itching but did not differ between the placebo/nocebo conditions. Information about the optimism of the oil maker was associated with a lower frequency of reported side effects (adverse and beneficial).ConclusionThis study demonstrated that it is sufficient to provide participants with written information about an inert substance to elicit the suggested side effect. Information about the provider’s optimistic personality did not specifically influence reported side effects. Future studies should focus on how to adapt written information about a drug/product to minimize adverse side effects and to maximize positive side effects.