Studies showing that suspects with a migration background are punished more severely than offenders with a Dutch background receive a lot of attention from the media and politicians. Yet it remains... Show moreStudies showing that suspects with a migration background are punished more severely than offenders with a Dutch background receive a lot of attention from the media and politicians. Yet it remains unclear whether ethnicity causes sentencing disparity. This requires experimental research. In this study, we conduct an experiment in which one half of the participants judged a criminal casefile with a photo of a light-skinned suspect, and the other half a dark-skinned suspect. Data was collected in 2017 and 2021. The data from 2017 show no sentencing disparity, but the 2021-data do show that the dark-skinned offender is punished more severely. Recommendations for future research are made. Show less
Purpose Shared decision making calls for clinician communication strategies that aim to foster choice awareness and to present treatment options neutrally, such as by not showing a preference.... Show morePurpose Shared decision making calls for clinician communication strategies that aim to foster choice awareness and to present treatment options neutrally, such as by not showing a preference. Evidence for the effectiveness of these communication strategies to enhance patient involvement in treatment decision making is lacking. We tested the effects of 2 strategies in an online randomized video-vignettes experiment. Methods We developed disease-specific video vignettes for rheumatic disease, cancer, and kidney disease showcasing a physician presenting 2 treatment options. We tested the strategies in a 2 (choice awareness communication present/absent) by 2 (physician preference communication present/absent) randomized between-subjects design. We asked patients and disease-naive participants to view 1 video vignette while imagining being the patient and to report perceived room for involvement (primary outcome), understanding of treatment information, treatment preference, satisfaction with the consultation, and trust in the physician (secondary outcomes). Differences across experimental conditions were assessed using 2-way analyses of variance. Results A total of 324 patients and 360 disease-naive respondents participated (mean age, 52 +/- 14.7 y, 54% female, 56% lower educated, mean health literacy, 12 +/- 2.1 on a 3-15 scale). The results showed that choice awareness communication had a positive (M-present = 5.2 v. M-absent = 5.0, P = 0.042, eta(2)(partial) = 0.006) and physician preference communication had no (M-present = 5.0 v. M-absent = 5.1, P = 0.144, eta(2)(partial) = 0.003) significant effect on perceived room for involvement in decision making. Physician preference communication steered patients toward preferring that treatment option (M-present = 4.7 v. M-absent = 5.3, P = 0.006, eta(2)(partial) = 0.011). The strategies had no significant effect on understanding, satisfaction, or trust. Conclusions This is the first experimental evidence for a small effect of fostering choice awareness and no effect of physician preference on perceived room to participate in decision making. Physician preference steered patients toward preferring that option. Show less
