Fascinating application of Attribution Theory, borrowing perspectives on communicating epidemiological risk. Attribution Theory is underutilized in understanding risk communication.
The conclusions state that "coffee consumption should reduce the risk of alcohol-related cirrhosis." Would this also hold for cannabis and tobacco use? These would be interesting causal or correlational associations.
It is good to see a systematic review with such rigorous methods and reporting--if only the original studies were similarly rigorous. It's depressing to see how few articles made the cut. Regarding Table 3: I can't tell which of these outcomes are T2D.
As an Airbnb host, I am very glad to see serious research assisting in evaluating the phenomenon of trust-based exchange, as reviews are generally vague and almost always positive.
Having worked in natural/complementary therapy research, I think regulations of non-pharmaceuticals is long overdue. It need not be onerous, but should allow consumers and their healthcare providers to make comparisons and assessments of efficacy.
It is good to see serious research on this topic. I have recently heard that there is a training program for therapists being offered in Amsterdam this April.
A "novel system" is definitely what's needed to strengthen IRB processes. My observations suggest that at many institutions, the IRB faces conflicting roles as it seeks to use processes to make researchers consider the ethics of proposed studies, while at the same time sharing with researchers the need for their institution to be successful. Far too often, the process devolves into an arms race over IRBs making forms stringent vs researchers trying to find efficient workarounds for filling out these forms. The actual ethics of the question, and whether the research should go forward are seldom discussed between the two groups.
What types of research need to be done to ensure that hummingbird feeders are not actually harmful? Are there any widespread occurrences of deaths in areas with more feeders?
I am very glad to see these conclusions, but we have had a recent outbreak of salmonella among pine siskins, and most environmental organizations urged removing birdfeeders. How do you recommend balancing these benefits and risks for bird populations?
It is unclear to me how expanding surveillance will contribute to reducing the occurrence of birth defects; many countries, states, and provinces have robust surveillance programs but have not been able to use the data to affect periconceptional behaviors or exposures.
论文