Suchergebnisse

Introduction & BackgroundDigital footprints data are key for the economy, underpinning business models and service provision. This information can also bring benefit to public good, yet sharing of digital footprints data are predicated on individual attitudes which in term depend on the value these data have to consumers. In this study, we investigated how individuals make decisions about sharing their digital footprints data, as well as which features of the data sharing scenario affect their decision to share the data.
Objectives & ApproachWe used responses from a nationally representative sample of 2,087 UK residents to estimate public preferences towards sharing different types of digital footprint data in scenarios with different features. The main part of our experiment consisted of a Discrete Choice Experiment which allows the relative importance of the different features of data sharing scenarios to be established, revealing the tradeoffs participants make between them. Participants made a series of choices between two hypothetical data sharing scenario options or could "opt out" by choosing neither specified option. For example, we examined the differences in responses when data are shared for different purposes (e.g., for research vs private benefit), as well as when data are shared with more or less granular details about identity or location. The data were analysed using a logistic regression with an alternative-specific constant.
Relevance to Digital FootprintsWe focused on understanding whether varied features of six different types of digital footprints data - namely banking transactions, electricity use at home, retail loyalty cards use, browsing history, social media, and physical activity data - affect people's decision whether to share these data.
ResultsParticipants were more likely to share their data with a university for academic research than with a private company or government. Participants were also most reluctant to share data alongside their personal identity. Participants were concerned with the recipient of the data and their purpose in requesting it; whether the data would be shared along with their location and if so, to what specificity; and with the level of aggregation of the data (i.e. whether it would be shared in fine detail or as a monthly summary). In addition, we demonstrated the importance of the type of data to be shared, with people most reluctant to share bank transactions data, but relatively unconcerned about sharing their physical activity, electricity use and loyalty cards data.
Conclusions & ImplicationsWe contribute by highlighting the trade-offs individuals are willing to make between different elements of a data sharing situation, and the relative importance of these different aspects. We also demonstrate that individuals' have positive attitudes to share digital footprints data for research benefiting public good. By integrating these preferences into ethical and responsible research models, we can create fairer and more balanced data sharing frameworks, which can ultimately help people to make better choices about their personal digital footprints data.

Abstract
Compliance with hygiene and other safety measures in the workplace was an important component of society's strategy for reducing infections at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular before vaccinations were widely available. We report the results of a field trial of well-established behavioural interventions (social norms, pledging and messenger effects) we implemented to improve compliance with such measures in an occupational setting. We use daily reports of own and other's behaviour to assess the effects of these interventions and supplement these subjective (self-reported) measures with objective data on hand sanitiser usage. The behavioural interventions tested have statistically significant but quantitatively moderate effects on subjective compliance measures and minimal effects on hand sanitiser usage. All effects of our interventions are short-term in nature and dissipate shortly after implementation. Our findings thus provide at most weak support for the notion that typical behavioural interventions can help support compliance with infection prevention measures in the workplace.

AbstractIn this paper we test the efficiency of family resource allocation in three-generation households. Understanding how the so-called "squeezed middle" generation allocates resources towards the children and grandparents in the household will be increasingly important as populations age, and more elderly people become dependent upon their relations for financial support. Despite a large literature on household resource allocation in two-generation households (parents and children), to the best of our knowledge ours is the first study that includes the third generation. We present a theoretical model and conduct a discrete choice experiment in the context of reductions in the lifetime risk of developing coronary artery disease to verify the efficient resource allocation hypothesis. The data is obtained from a large sample of the Polish population. The sample consists of the middle generation members of three-generation households and hence WTP represents household value from the perspective of the "squeezed middle" parent. The results imply that household resource allocation is efficient. This has implications for understanding the likely response to government financial support aimed at supporting elderly people and their families.

This article discusses the use of the Most Significant Change (MSC) technique in a mixed-methods evaluation of a pilot wellbeing programme for obstetrics and gynaecology doctors-in-training introduced at a large public hospital during Melbourne, Australia's second coronavirus (COVID-19) lockdown, which occurred from 7 July to 26 October 2020. The evaluation was conducted remotely using videoconferencing technology, to conform with pandemic restrictions. MSC complemented the program's participatory principles and was chosen because it seeks to learn about participants' perceptions of programme impacts by evaluating their stories of significant change. Stakeholders select one story exemplifying the most significant change resulting from the evaluated program. Inductive thematic analysis of all stories is combined with reasons for making the selection, to inform learnings ( Dart & Davies, 2003 ; Tonkin et al., 2021 ). Nine stories of change were included in the selection. The most significant change was a more supportive workplace culture brought about by enabling basic needs to be met and breaking down hierarchical barriers. This was linked to five interconnected themes – connection, caring, communication, confidence and cooperation. The evaluation learnings are explored and reflections on remotely conducting MSC evaluation are shared.

Naloxone is a well-established essential medicine for the treatment of life-threatening heroin/opioid overdose in emergency medicine. Over two decades, the concept of 'take-home naloxone' has evolved, comprising pre-provision of an emergency supply to laypersons likely to witness an opioid overdose (e.g. peers and family members of people who use opioids as well as non-medical personnel), with the recommendation to administer the naloxone to the overdose victim as interim care while awaiting an ambulance. There is an urgent need for more widespread naloxone access considering the growing problem of opioid overdose deaths, accounting for more than 100,000 deaths worldwide annually. Rises in mortality are particularly sharp in North America, where the ongoing prescription opioid problem is now overlaid with a rapid growth in overdose deaths from heroin and illicit fentanyl. Using opioids alone is dangerous, and the mortality risk is clustered at certain times and contexts, including on prison release and discharge from hospital and residential care. The provision of take-home naloxone has required the introduction of new legislation and new naloxone products. These include pre-filled syringes and auto-injectors and, crucially, new concentrated nasal sprays (four formulations recently approved in different countries) with speed of onset comparable to intramuscular naloxone and relative bioavailability of approximately 40-50%. Choosing the right naloxone dose in the fentanyl era is a matter of ongoing debate, but the safety margin of the approved nasal sprays is superior to improvised nasal kits. New legislation in different countries permits over-the-counter sales or other prescription-free methods of provision. However, access remains uneven with take-home naloxone still not provided in many countries and communities, and with ongoing barriers contributing to implementation inertia. Take-home naloxone is an important component of the response to the global overdose problem, but greater commitment to implementation will be essential, alongside improved affordable products, if a greater impact is to be achieved.

Naloxone is a well-established essential medicine for the treatment of life-threatening heroin/opioid overdose in emergency medicine. Over two decades, the concept of 'take-home naloxone' has evolved, comprising pre-provision of an emergency supply to laypersons likely to witness an opioid overdose (e.g. peers and family members of people who use opioids as well as non-medical personnel), with the recommendation to administer the naloxone to the overdose victim as interim care while awaiting an ambulance. There is an urgent need for more widespread naloxone access considering the growing problem of opioid overdose deaths, accounting for more than 100,000 deaths worldwide annually. Rises in mortality are particularly sharp in North America, where the ongoing prescription opioid problem is now overlaid with a rapid growth in overdose deaths from heroin and illicit fentanyl. Using opioids alone is dangerous, and the mortality risk is clustered at certain times and contexts, including on prison release and discharge from hospital and residential care. The provision of take-home naloxone has required the introduction of new legislation and new naloxone products. These include pre-filled syringes and auto-injectors and, crucially, new concentrated nasal sprays (four formulations recently approved in different countries) with speed of onset comparable to intramuscular naloxone and relative bioavailability of approximately 40–50%. Choosing the right naloxone dose in the fentanyl era is a matter of ongoing debate, but the safety margin of the approved nasal sprays is superior to improvised nasal kits. New legislation in different countries permits over-the-counter sales or other prescription-free methods of provision. However, access remains uneven with take-home naloxone still not provided in many countries and communities, and with ongoing barriers contributing to implementation inertia. Take-home naloxone is an important component of the response to the global overdose problem, but greater commitment to implementation will be essential, alongside improved affordable products, if a greater impact is to be achieved. ; publishedVersion

Naloxone is a well-established essential medicine for the treatment of life-threatening heroin/opioid overdose in emergency medicine. Over two decades, the concept of 'take-home naloxone' has evolved, comprising pre-provision of an emergency supply to laypersons likely to witness an opioid overdose (e.g. peers and family members of people who use opioids as well as non-medical personnel), with the recommendation to administer the naloxone to the overdose victim as interim care while awaiting an ambulance. There is an urgent need for more widespread naloxone access considering the growing problem of opioid overdose deaths, accounting for more than 100,000 deaths worldwide annually. Rises in mortality are particularly sharp in North America, where the ongoing prescription opioid problem is now overlaid with a rapid growth in overdose deaths from heroin and illicit fentanyl. Using opioids alone is dangerous, and the mortality risk is clustered at certain times and contexts, including on prison release and discharge from hospital and residential care. The provision of take-home naloxone has required the introduction of new legislation and new naloxone products. These include pre-filled syringes and auto-injectors and, crucially, new concentrated nasal sprays (four formulations recently approved in different countries) with speed of onset comparable to intramuscular naloxone and relative bioavailability of approximately 40–50%. Choosing the right naloxone dose in the fentanyl era is a matter of ongoing debate, but the safety margin of the approved nasal sprays is superior to improvised nasal kits. New legislation in different countries permits over-the-counter sales or other prescription-free methods of provision. However, access remains uneven with take-home naloxone still not provided in many countries and communities, and with ongoing barriers contributing to implementation inertia. Take-home naloxone is an important component of the response to the global overdose problem, but greater commitment to implementation ...