Warning labels can be formatted in a variety of ways. ANSI Z535.4 and ISO 3864-2 are two voluntary standards that provide guidance on label format. Two studies examined people's perception of (Study 1) and behavior in response to (Study 2) warning labels formatted in the following ways: (1) Non-standard format, (2) ANSI-format, (3) ISO-format, and (4) a combination of the ANSI- and ISO-format. The results of Study 1 show that lay people think that warning format will significantly influence people's behavior in terms of noticing and complying with warnings. However, the results of Study 2 showed that people's actual behavioral compliance is not significantly influenced by the standard warning formats compared to the Non-standard condition. Subjects did report reading more of the Non-standard label than the other labels. The results of these studies are consistent with previous findings in the warning literature. Implications of these results are discussed.

No abstract

How many drinks are too many drinks? This study explored this question from multiple perspectives. An earlier study of university students was expanded to a national adult sample of 191 adults. Participants were asked how many drinks they could consume before they would no longer feel safe engaging in everyday activities, including driving, biking, and walking. Compared to university students, a national adult sample generally considered activities to be unsafe at lower levels of alcohol consumption. This sample also tended to underestimate the number of drinks required to reach a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08%. Some participants indicated an unwillingness to engage in activities if alcohol posed any increased risk, while others appeared to tolerate some added risk posed by alcohol consumption. Implications for risk perception and decision-making are discussed.

This study examined the influence of signal word on the interpretation of a product safety label in 1992 and 2004. It also examined people's ability to infer consequences from a label that did not explicitly state hazard or consequence information. Participants were shown a label with the signal word DANGER, WARNING, or CAUTION, or with no signal word and asked a series of questions regarding willingness to engage in certain activities with the product, perceived degree of hazard associated with engaging in these activities, perceived degree of hazard associated with not heeding the label, and perceived consequences of not heeding the label. Participants were able to infer the type of hazard and other consequence information that was not explicitly stated. Presence or type of signal word did not influence perceived hazardousness or perceived consequences and with one exception did not influence willingness to engage in certain activities. With one minor exception, there were no differences in responses between 1992 and 2004. In a separate analysis, hazard ratings, overall, were lower for signal words when presented second than when presented first.

Aim Phenytoin is the recommended second-line intravenous anticonvulsant in the management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus (CSE). Anecdotal data suggest levetiracetam may be as effective as, and safer than phenytoin. The aim of this trial was to compare the effectiveness and safety of both drugs in CSE. Methods A superiority and open-label, randomised controlled trial (RCT) undertaken in 30 Emergency Departments in the UK. Participants were aged 6 months to <18 years with CSE that required second-line treatment. Randomisation (1:1) was to levetiracetam (40 mg/kg infused over 5 min) or phenytoin (20 mg/kg infused over 20 min) and stratified by centre. Research without prior consent ('deferred consent') was used as CSE is a time-critical emergency. Clinicians followed national treatment algorithms and enrolled participants at the appropriate time point for administration of second-line treatment. The primary outcome was time to CSE-cessation. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered (ISRCTN 22567894). Results Consent was obtained for 286 (152 levetiracetam, 134 phenytoin) randomised and treated participants between July 2015 and April 2018 comprising the primary outcome analysis. Median time (IQR) from randomisation to CSE-cessation was 35 min (20-NA) in the levetiracetam and 45 min (24-NA) in the phenytoin-treated group (adjusted Hazard Ratio 1.17 [95% CI 0.87-1.57; p=0.3). CSE was terminated in 106 (69.6%) of the levetiracetam, and 86 (64.2%) of the phenytoin-treated group. Sensitivity analysis showed no difference between groups using time from start of infusion to CSE-cessation. Five serious adverse events occurred in four participants, one of which was considered related to the drug (severe hypotension in a phenytoin-treated participant). No serious, new or unexpected reactions were observed with levetiracetam. Conclusion No statistically significant difference was detected between treatments but results, robust across sensitivity analyses, favoured levetiracetam. Serious adverse events were low for both treatments although there are known concerns with the safety profile of phenytoin. This trial suggests levetiracetam be considered as an alternative to phenytoin as the firstchoice, second-line treatment of CSE in children.Background With the high prevalence of bullying in schools and rise in cyberbullying in the UK, it is vital that the health impacts of bullying victimisation, including on risk-taking and delinquent behaviour, are understood. These behaviours have important public health implications for non-communicable diseases and violent crime. Neurobiological and social changes can make adolescent victims of bullying more susceptible to subsequent impulsive behaviour. This is the first study in England to use a longitudinal design to investigate the relationship between bullying/cyberbullying victimisation and risk-taking behaviour. Aim To test whether bullying/cyberbullying victimisation is associated with subsequent health risk-taking and delinquent behaviour in ...