In Therefore, patients are receiving biased information which

In the United States, 230,000 patients are diagnosed with prostate cancer. Many diagnosed patients suffer from localized prostate cancer. This study assessed how specialty bias between radiation oncologists and urologists affected the treatment recommendations given to patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer. This study also assessed how specialty bias affected the treatment related perceptions, such as the effectiveness and its effect on quality of life. The researchers randomly selected physicians that specialized in radiation oncology and urology using the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. The researchers limited the study to physicians that were younger than 65 years, physicians that completed their residency training and physicians that practiced in the United States. Surveys that included a case scenario which described the physical conditions of a patient that was diagnosed with a localized prostate tumor. After the scenario, different combinations of Gleason scores (which measures the likelihood of the cancer growing and spreading) and PSA levels (Prostate specific antigen in the bloodstream) were provided. These surveys were sent out to the selected physicians. The physicians were asked to choose from four different primary treatment options which were related to both the specialties. Another survey was also sent to determine how the physicians perceived the effectiveness of their preferred treatment and its effect on a patient’s quality of life. The results indicated that radiology oncologists preferred recommending radiation therapy more frequently than urologists. Urologists preferred recommending surgery compared to radiation oncologists. Both types of specialists perceived their preferred treatment to be more effective and that it leads to a better quality of life. Therefore, patients are receiving biased information which can negatively affect their recovery.

            This study was conducted to determine if presenting material using different modalities (text, verbal and a song version) affected the retrieval of information. In this study, 112 high school students from Germany were tested. The researchers assigned the participants randomly into three different conditions; Visual, spoken and sung. Each condition contained 36,38 and 38 participants respectively. The material presented was 200 words long and was related to King Henry VIII. Participants in the sung group, heard the song version of the text and the same text was read out to the participants in the verbal group. The participants in both these groups learned their material through a pair of headphones which was connected to an Ipod. The participants in the visual group received a printed version of the material. Prior to presenting the material, baseline testing was performed to determine the students’ prior knowledge on King Henry VIII. After familiarizing themselves with the content, the participants were presented with post-test questions. The questions contained questions which tested their recall and comprehensive ability. The results indicated that the participants in the visual group was better at recalling information compared to the other groups. This indicates that the participants in this group could focus efficiently and recall the information better than the participants in the other groups. No significant different was observed between the audio and sung group. However, the participants in the sung and verbal groups performed better on the comprehensive questions compared to the text group indicating that listening to the song version of material enabled individuals to understand the material. Therefore, reading text version leads to a better recall ability whereas listening to the material (spoken or sung) leads to better comprehension.