Search

In the rapidly changing circumstances of our increasingly digital world, reading is also becoming an increasingly digital experience: electronic books (e-books) are now outselling print books in the United States and the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, many readers still view e-books as less readable than print books. The present study thus used combined EEG and eyetracking measures in order to test whether reading from digital media requires higher cognitive effort than reading conventional books. Young and elderly adults read short texts on three different reading devices: a paper page, an e-reader and a tablet computer and answered comprehension questions about them while their eye movements and EEG were recorded. The results of a debriefing questionnaire replicated previous findings in that participants overwhelmingly chose the paper page over the two electronic devices as their preferred reading medium. Online measures, by contrast, showed shorter mean fixation durations and lower EEG theta band voltage density – known to covary with memory encoding and retrieval – for the older adults when reading from a tablet computer in comparison to the other two devices. Young adults showed comparable fixation durations and theta activity for all three devices. Comprehension accuracy did not differ across the three media for either group. We argue that these results can be explained in terms of the better text discriminability (higher contrast) produced by the backlit display of the tablet computer. Contrast sensitivity decreases with age and degraded contrast conditions lead to longer reading times, thus supporting the conclusion that older readers may benefit particularly from the enhanced contrast of the tablet. Our findings thus indicate that people's subjective evaluation of digital reading media must be dissociated from the cognitive and neural effort expended in online information processing while reading from such devices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is continuing public debate about treatment preferences at the end of life, and the acceptability and legal status of treatments that sustain or end life. However, most surveys use binary yes/no measures, and little is known about preferences in neurological disease when decision-making capacity is lost, as most studies focus on cancer. This study investigates changes in public preferences for care towards the end of life, with a focus on measures to sustain or end life. Methods: Large-scale international public opinion surveys using a six-stage patient vignette, respondents chose a level of intervention for each stage as health and decision-making capacity deteriorated. Cross-sectional representative samples of the general public in Great Britain and the USA (N = 2016). Primary outcome measure: changes in respondents’ preferences for care, measured on a four-point scale designed before data collection. The scale ranged from: maintaining life at all costs; to intervention with agreement; to no intervention; to measures for ending life. Results: There were no significant differences between GB and USA. Preference for measures to sustain life at all costs peaked at short-term memory loss (30.2%, n = 610). Respondents selecting ‘measures to help me die peacefully’ increased from 3.9% to 37.0% as the condition deteriorated, with the largest increase occurring when decision-making capacity was lost (10.3% to 23.0%). Predictors of choosing ‘measures to help me die peacefully’ at any stage were: previous personal experience (OR = 1.34, p<0.010), and older age (OR = 1.09 per decade, p<0.010). Negative predictors: living with children (OR = 0.72, p<0.010) and being of “black” race/ethnicity (OR = 0.45, p<0.001). Conclusions: Public opinion was uniform between GB and USA, but markedly heterogeneous. Despite contemporaneous capacitous consent providing an essential legal safeguard in most jurisdictions, there was a high prevalence of preference for “measures to end my life peacefully” when decision-making capacity was compromised, which increased as dementia progressed. In contrast, a significant number chose preservation of life at all costs, even in end stage dementia. It is challenging to respect the longstanding values of people with dementia concerning either the inviolability of life or personal autonomy, whilst protecting those without decision-making capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Physician associates, known internationally as physician assistants, are a mid-level practitioner, well established in the United States of America but new to the United Kingdom. A small number work in primary care under the supervision of general practitioners, where they most commonly see patients requesting same day appointments for new problems. As an adjunct to larger study, we investigated the quality of the patient consultation of physician associates in comparison to that of general practitioners. Method: We conducted a comparative observational study using video recordings of consultations by volunteer physician associates and general practitioners with consenting patients in single surgery sessions. Recordings were assessed by experienced general practitioners, blinded to the type of the consulting practitioner, using the Leicester Assessment Package. Assessors were asked to comment on the safety of the recorded consultations and to attempt to identify the type of practitioner. Ratings were compared across practitioner type, alongside the number of presenting complaints discussed in each consultation and the number of these which were acute, minor, or regarding a chronic condition. Results: We assessed 62 consultations (41 general practitioner and 21 physician associates) from five general practitioners and four physician associates. All consultations were assessed as safe; but general practitioners were rated higher than PAs in all elements of consultation. The general practitioners were more likely than physician associates to see people with multiple presenting complaints (p<0.0001) and with chronic disease related complaints (p = 0.008). Assessors correctly identified general practitioner consultations but not physician associates. The Leicester Assessment Package had limited inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. Conclusions: The physician associate consultations were with a less complex patient group. They were judged as competent and safe, although general practitioner consultations, unsurprisingly, were rated as more competent. Physician associates offer a complementary addition to the medical workforce in general practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]