Suchergebnisse

Summary: The article investigates specific affective reactions to social comparison outcomes within the framework of the contrast-empathy model ( Brandstätter, 1998 , 2000 ). One hundred and one participants received vignettes that described social income comparisons between a target person and a comparison other. In these vignettes comparison direction, relationship quality and relevance were varied. Participants (1) freely expressed the target person's likely emotions and (2) rated the hedonic intensities of various emotions mentioned. Results support the predictions derived from the contrast-empathy model, corroborate a stronger impact of pity compared to empathetic joy, and suggest practical implications relevant for economic psychology.

Health political background The comparison of the effectiveness of health technologies is not only laid down in German law (Social Code Book V, § 139 and § 35b) but also constitutes a central element of clinical guidelines and decision making in health care. Tools supporting decision making (e. g. Health Technology Assessments (HTA)) are therefore in need of a valid methodological repertoire for these comparisons. Scientific background Randomised controlled head-to-head trials which directly compare the effects of different therapies are considered the gold standard methodological approach for the comparison of the efficacy of interventions. Because this type of trial is rarely found, comparisons of efficacy often need to rely on indirect comparisons whose validity is being controversially debated. Research questions Research questions for the current assessment are: Which (statistical) methods for indirect comparisons of therapeutic interventions do exist, how often are they applied and how valid are their results in comparison to the results of head-to-head trials? Methods In a systematic literature research all medical databases of the German Institute of Medical Documentation and Information (DIMDI) are searched for methodological papers as well as applications of indirect comparisons in systematic reviews. Results of the literature analysis are summarized qualitatively for the characterisation of methods and quantitatively for the frequency of their application. The validity of the results from indirect comparisons is checked by comparing them to the results from the gold standard - a direct comparison. Data sets from systematic reviews which use both direct and indirect comparisons are tested for consistency by of the z-statistic. Results 29 methodological papers and 106 applications of indirect methods in systematic reviews are being analysed. Four methods for indirect comparisons can be identified: Unadjusted indirect comparisons include, independent of any comparator, all randomised controlled trials ...