Experimental components analysis of brief theory-based HIV/AIDS risk-reduction counseling for sexually transmitted infection patients.

An experimental components analysis of brief HIV risk-reduction counseling based on the information-motivation-behavioral skills (IMB) model was conducted with 432 men and 193 women receiving sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinic services. Following baseline assessments, participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 90-min risk-reduction counseling sessions that deconstructed the IMB model within a full factorial design. Participants were followed for 9 months, with STI diagnoses monitored over 12 months. Men who received the full IMB session evidenced relatively greater use of risk-reduction behavioral skills and relatively lower rates of unprotected intercourse over 6-months follow-up and had fewer new STIs. For women, however, the motivational counseling demonstrated the most positive outcomes. Results suggest that brief single-exposure HIV prevention counseling can reduce HIV transmission risks.     

Larry J. Churchill. Self-interest and Universal Health Care: Why Well-Insured Americans Should Support Coverage for Everyone

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics -     

The Changing Relationship Between Unemployment and Suicide

The relationship between unemployment and suicide has changed over time and in particular during the Great Recession. Using state‐level panel data covering the years 1979–2010, the study indicates that unemployment's impact was insignificant during the first half of the sample period, but was highly significant during the second half. In addition, while the impact has generally become stronger over recent decades, it fell during the Great Recession although remained significant. Evidence suggesting that increased economic insecurity helps explain the growing sensitivity over time is offered. The models fit the data well, explaining up to 90% of the variation in state suicide rates.     

Explanation and Evidence in Informal Argument

A substantial body of evidence shows that people tend to rely too heavily on explanations when trying to justify an opinion. Some research suggests these errors may arise from an inability to distinguish between explanations and the evidence that bears upon them. We examine an alternative account, that many people do distinguish between explanations and evidence, but rely more heavily on unsubstantiated explanations when evidence is scarce or absent. We examine the philosophical and psychological distinctions between explanation and evidence, and show that participants use explanations as a substitute for missing evidence. Experiment 1 replicates the results of other researchers, but further shows that participants generate more evidence when they are not constrained by their lack of data. Merely mentioning a source of data can alter both their evaluation (Experiment 2) and their production (Experiment 3) of explanations and evidence. In Experiment 4, we show that participants can explicitly consider the availability of evidence and other pragmatic factors when evaluating arguments. Finally, we consider the implications of using explanations to replace missing evidence as a strategy in argument.