The main question addressed in this paper is how the great variation in the level of social trust in different countries can be explained. Most empirical research on this question has been based on survey data which has limitations when it comes to capturing the causal mechanisms. Building on theories that point to the importance of trustworthy governmental institutions for creating social trust, two parallel experiments were conducted in two countries where the levels of corruption and social trust are very different. One group of 64 Swedish and one group of 82 Romanian undergraduate students responded to a number of scenarios which describe situations at a police station or a doctor's surgery in a foreign country. In the scenarios, the person tries to receive immediate assistance from the police/doctor at the same time as another person who lives in the `unknown' country. These encounters varied within groups in terms of (1) whether or not a bribe was used in order to receive immediate assistance, (2) whether the other person or the official took the initiative to request/offer immediate assistance in exchange for the bribe, and (3) outcome in terms of whether immediate assistance was approved or declined as a result of the offer or demand for a bribe. Type of authority (police vs. doctor) was a between-groups factor. Subsequent to each scenario, participants' levels of various aspects of vertical and horizontal trust were measured. As hypothesized, the Romanian sample had reliably lower initial levels of horizontal trust than the Swedish sample. For both samples, however, the results showed the expected effects of bribe, initiator, and outcome on all dependent trust measures. The results supported the hypothesis that trust in authorities influences the perceptions of the trustworthiness of others in general. Even though some of the effects were stronger for one sample than for the other, the influence of vertical trust on social trust was true for both the high- and the low-trusting sample.

For patients residing in community dwellings, the direct influence of patients' cognition on caregiver burden is limited and rather mediated by other disease indicators. Instead, the patients' ADL-abilities are the main predictor of informal care hours, and both ADL-abilities and behavioral disturbances are important predictors of perceived caregiver burden, where the latter has the strongest effect. These results were consistent across Sweden, U.K. and the U.S.A.

AstraZeneca.

ObjectiveThe emergence of various modes of administration for cancer treatment, including oral administration, brings into focus the importance of patient preference for administration. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the administration preferences of cancer patients, specifically between oral and intravenous (IV) treatment, as well as the factors contributing to preference.MethodsA literature search was conducted in OvidSP to identify research in which the preferences of cancer patients for oral or IV treatment have been evaluated. Data were analyzed in two stages: 1) those articles that directly compared preference between modes of administration were tallied to determine explicit preference for oral or IV treatment; and 2) all attributes associated with patient preference were documented.ResultsOf the 48 abstracts identified as part of the initial OvidSP search, eight articles were selected for full-text review. One article was removed following full-text review, and seven additional articles were identified through a gray literature search, yielding a total of 14 articles for evaluation. In Stage 1, 13 of the 14 articles compared preference, of which eleven articles (84.6%) reported that patients preferred oral treatment over IV, while two (15.4%) stated that cancer patients preferred IV treatment over oral. In Stage 2, the most frequently reported attributes contributing to preference included convenience, ability to receive treatment at home, treatment schedule, and side effects.DiscussionEvidence suggests that oncology patients prefer oral treatment to IV. Rationale for preference was due to a number of factors, including convenience, perception of efficacy, and past experience. Further evaluation should be conducted, given the limited data on patient preference in oncology.

No abstract