In two experiments, we investigated how people interpret and reason with realistic conditionals in the form of inducements (i.e., promises and threats) and advice (i.e., tips and warnings). We found that inducements and advice differed with respect to the degree to which the speaker was perceived to have (a) control over the consequent, (b) a stake in the outcome, and (c) an obligation to ensure that the outcome occurs. Inducements and advice also differed with respect to perceived sufficiency and necessity, as well as the degree to which these statements were perceived to be effective in changing the behaviour described in the antecedent of the conditional. Multiple regression analyses indicated that perceived control over the consequent, necessity, and sufficiency emerged as the best predictors of (a) the degree to which statements were perceived to be effective in changing the behaviour of the addressee, and (b) inference patterns on a conditional arguments task.Conditional reasoning is a common form of reasoning that entails drawing inferences about statements of the form if p then q, where p and q refer to the antecedent and consequent terms, respectively. Most of what we know about conditional reasoning comes from a small number of deductive reasoning tasks. In these tasks, participants are asked to assume the truth of the premises and reason only on the basis of the information explicitly provided. However, there is a growing consensus that this deductive paradigm is too restrictive to fully capture the complexities of everyday reasoning (see Evans, 2002). Instead, a complete understanding of people's reasoning processes will require a multi-dimensional approach that goes beyond the limitations imposed by the deductive paradigm (Beller, 2002).

No abstract

Aims: Most studies of injury incidence underestimate the total burden of injury, as they do not include injuries treated in primary care. The aim of this study was to measure the total incidence of medically treated injuries in Norway. We further investigated the epidemiology of injuries treated in primary and secondary care. Methods: We collected individual-level data on injury diagnoses from the Norwegian Patient Registry and the national registry dataset for reimbursement of primary care providers for the period 2009–2014, and estimated the annual incidence of patients registered with an injury diagnosis in either or both of these registries. We also converted ICD-10 codes in secondary care into ICPC-2 codes to compare the types of injuries treated in primary and secondary care. Results: The annual incidence of medically treated injuries in Norway was 125 patients per 1000 inhabitants. Fifty-five per cent of injured patients received treatment exclusively in primary care. We observed stable time trends over the six-year period. Incidence rates were higher in primary care for the youngest children and in middle adulthood, but were higher in secondary care for older people. Overall, injury incidence was higher for men, but women became more injury prone with age. We only observed this gender reversal in secondary care. With the exception of fractures, all injury types were predominantly treated in primary care. Conclusions: A substantial proportion of injured patients in Norway are treated exclusively in primary care. The demographic profile of these patients differs from those treated in secondary care.

Aims: In order to prevent a major outbreak of COVID-19 disease in Norway, a series of lockdown measures was announced on 12 March 2020. The aim of the present paper was to describe the impact of this lockdown on the treatment of injuries. Methods: We collected hospital data on injury diagnoses from a national emergency preparedness register established during the pandemic. We identified the number of injured patients per day in the period 1 January–30 June 2020, and analysed the change in patient volumes over two three-week periods before and during the lockdown by sex, age, level of care, level of urgency, type of contact and type of injury. Results: Compared to pre-lockdown levels, there was an overall reduction of 43% in injured patients during the first three weeks of lockdown. The decrease in patient contacts did not differ by sex, but was most pronounced among young people. Substantial reductions were observed for both acute and elective treatment and across all levels of care and types of contact, with the exception of indirect patient contacts. The change in patient contacts varied considerably by injury type, with the largest reduction observed for dislocations/sprains/strains. The decrease was much lower for burns/corrosions and poisoning. Conclusions: A substantial reduction in the treatment of injuries was observed during lockdown in Norway. Possible explanations for this finding include an overall decrease in injury risk, a redistribution of hospital resources and a higher threshold for seeking medical attention as a result of the pandemic.

Background Previous research has generally found lower rates of injury incidence in immigrant populations than in native-born populations. Most of this literature relies on mortality statistics or hospital data, and we know less about injuries treated in primary health care. The aim of the present study was to assess use of primary and secondary care for treatment of injuries among immigrants in Norway according to geographic origin and type of injury. Methods We conducted a nationwide register-based cohort study of all individuals aged 25–64 years who resided in Norway as of January 1st 2008. This cohort was followed through 2014 by linking sociodemographic information and injury data from primary and secondary care. We grouped immigrants into six world regions of origin and identified immigrants from the ten most frequently represented countries of origin. Six categories of injury were defined: fractures, superficial injuries, open wounds, dislocations/sprains/strains, burns and poisoning. Poisson regression models were fitted to estimate incidence rate ratios separately for injuries treated in primary and secondary care according to immigrant status, geographic origin and type of injury, with adjustment for sex, age, county of residence, marital status and socioeconomic status. Results Immigrants had a 16% lower incidence of injury in primary care than non-immigrants (adjusted IRR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.83–0.84), and a 10% lower incidence of injury in secondary care (adjusted IRR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.90–0.91). Immigrants from Asia, Africa and European countries outside EU/EEA had lower rates than non-immigrants for injuries treated in both primary and secondary care. Rates were lower in immigrants for most injury types, and in particular for fractures and poisoning. For a subset of injuries treated in secondary care, we found that immigrants had lower rates than non-immigrants for treatment of self-harm, falls, sports injuries and home injuries, but higher rates for treatment of assault, traffic injuries and occupational injuries. Conclusions Health care utilisation for treatment of injuries in primary and secondary care in Norway was lower for immigrants compared to non-immigrants. Incidence rates were especially low for immigrants originating from Asia, Africa and European countries outside EU/EEA, and for treatment of fractures, poisoning, self-harm and sports injuries.