Suchergebnisse

The threat of radiological terror is normally viewed in the context of the 'dirty bomb' - a device designed to spread radioactivity with conventional high explosive. Such devices are often called weapons of mass disruption because they are likely to result in small numbers of casualties but massive clean-up costs and considerable interference to everyday life. Inspired by the high-profile murder of Alexander Litvineko, terrorists are likely to seek more effective ways of employing radiation as a weapon of terror. Ingestion, inhalation and immersion (I 3) attacks, in which radiation doses are delivered internally or by direct contact with the skin, can credibly kill an order of magnitude more people than a dirty bomb, are likely to incite considerably more fear among members of the public, and may require a much lower level of technical skill to execute. However, the security of radioactive sources can be enhanced and the consequences of an (I 3) attack mitigated. (Survival / SWP)

AbstractEffective risk communication is an integral part of responding to terrorism, but until recently, there has been very little pre‐event communication in a European context to provide advice to the public on how to protect themselves during an attack. Following terrorist attacks involving mass shootings in Paris, France, in November 2015, the U.K. National Police Chiefs' Council released a Stay Safe film and leaflet that advises the public to "run," "hide," and "tell" in the event of a firearms or weapons attack. However, other countries, including Denmark, do not provide preparedness information of this kind, in large part because of concern about scaring the public. In this survey experiment, 3,003 U.K. and Danish participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: no information, a leaflet intervention, and a film intervention to examine the impact of "Run, Hide, Tell" advice on perceptions about terrorism, the security services, and intended responses to a hypothetical terrorist firearms attack. Results demonstrate important benefits of pre‐event communication in relation to enhancing trust, encouraging protective health behaviors, and discouraging potentially dangerous actions. However, these findings also suggest that future communications should address perceived response costs and target specific problem behaviors. Cross‐national similarities in response suggest this advice is suitable for adaptation in other countries.

The first collection of its kind to provide a comprehensive investigation of terrorism, suicide terrorism and martyrdom in an empirical study that spans continents and cultures from Northern Ireland to Tokyo, Japan, the Middle East, the UK, America, Israel and elsewhere throughout the world. This is a collection of empirical and theoretical studies dealing with terrorism, peace-making, peace keeping and post-traumatic treatment of those injured by violence through acts of terrorism and martyrdom. The research is world-wide in scope and multidisciplinary in content and focus. It illustrates that.

PURPOSE: To describe and discuss a systematic method for producing a very rapid response (3 days) to a UK government policy question in the context of reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission. METHODS: A group of behavioural and social scientists advising the UK government on COVID-19 contributed to the analysis and writing of advice through the Government Office for Science. The question was as follows: What are the options for increasing adherence to social distancing (staying at home except for essential journeys and work) and shielding vulnerable people (keeping them at home and away from others)? This was prior to social distancing legislation being implemented. The first two authors produced a draft, based on analysis of the current government guidance and the application of the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) framework to identify and evaluate the options. RESULTS: For promoting social distancing, 10 options were identified for improving adherence. They covered improvements in ways of achieving the BCW intervention types of education, persuasion, incentivization, and coercion. For promoting shielding of vulnerable people, four options were identified covering the BCW intervention types of incentivization, coercion, and enablement. CONCLUSIONS: Responding to policymakers very rapidly as has been necessary during the COVID-19 pandemic can be facilitated by using a framework to structure the thinking and reporting of multidisciplinary academics and policymakers.

PURPOSE: To describe and discuss a systematic method for producing a very rapid response (3 days) to a UK government policy question in the context of reducing SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission. METHODS: A group of behavioural and social scientists advising the UK government on COVID‐19 contributed to the analysis and writing of advice through the Government Office for Science. The question was as follows: What are the options for increasing adherence to social distancing (staying at home except for essential journeys and work) and shielding vulnerable people (keeping them at home and away from others)? This was prior to social distancing legislation being implemented. The first two authors produced a draft, based on analysis of the current government guidance and the application of the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) framework to identify and evaluate the options. RESULTS: For promoting social distancing, 10 options were identified for improving adherence. They covered improvements in ways of achieving the BCW intervention types of education, persuasion, incentivization, and coercion. For promoting shielding of vulnerable people, four options were identified covering the BCW intervention types of incentivization, coercion, and enablement. CONCLUSIONS: Responding to policymakers very rapidly as has been necessary during the COVID‐19 pandemic can be facilitated by using a framework to structure the thinking and reporting of multidisciplinary academics and policymakers.

Objective: To evaluate the quality of patient information leaflets provided with dispensed medications in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. Design: Quantitative survey by an expert panel. Setting: United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. Participants: Not applicable. Intervention: Patient information leaflets for atenolol, glyburide (glibenclamide), atorvastatin, and nitroglycerin (glyceryl trinitrate) from the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. Main outcome measures: Leaflets were evaluated against U. S. consensus criteria for both clinical information and general criteria, including the design of the leaflets. Results: Leaflets from Australia received a mean overall score of 90% (range 83%-94%) adherence with criteria, those from the United Kingdom a score of 81% (range 73%-84%), and those from the United States a score of 68% (range 65%-77%). The U. S. leaflets achieved 50% or less adherence for contraindication and precaution information. Omissions included warnings about preexisting allergy and illness and information about drug interactions. The U. S. leaflets also scored poorly (60%) for legibility and comprehensibility. The lower U. K. score reflected shortcomings in information about how to use and monitor the medications (46% adherence) and on adverse drug reactions (64%), largely due to the lack of clear advice about urgency of action in relation to adverse drug reactions. Conclusion: Leaflet quality varied more among the three countries than within each country, reflecting the regulatory context. The Australian leaflets performed well across all criteria, whereas the U. S. leaflets had significant shortcomings with the omission of vital information for the safe and effective use of the medications. A repeat survey is needed to assess whether new legislation and guidance in all three countries successfully addresses the shortcomings identified.