No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The problem of collective action to produce a group collective good is analyzed as the game of Individual vs. Collective and then as an n‐person game to show that, under the constraints of Mancur Olson's analysis, it is an n‐prisoners' dilemma in the cases of latent and intermediate groups. The usual analysis according to which noncooperation is considered the rational strategy for classical 2‐prisoners' dilemma is logically similar to Olson's analysis, which suggests that rational members of a latent group should not contribute toward the purchase of the group collective good. However, in the game analysis it is clear that the latent and intermediate groups are not logically different, but rather are distinguishable only statistically. Some prisoners' dilemma experimental results are used to suggest how the difference might arise and how the vast prisoners' dilemma literature can be related to the problem of collective action. The game of collective action is then analyzed not from the view of strategies but of outcomes. There is presented a theorem which states that the outcome in which all player‐members of a group pay and all benefit is a Condorcet choice from the set of realizable outcomes for the game. Hence the cooperative outcome in such a game would prevail in election against all other outcomes.

Objective: To ascertain whether a written information sheet is acceptable to patients and improves recall of the consent interview. Design: Prospective randomised controlled study using questionnaires, comparing a group of patients given information in a written sheet with appropriate explanation to a group given verbal information alone. Setting: A specialist orthopaedic surgery unit. Patients: The test group was 126 patients undergoing revision or primary total hip arthroplasty; 65 patients were given information verbally, 61 patients were given written information. Outcome measure: Patients' recall of information given, tested with a questionnaire completed on admission (mean of 18 days later). Results: The patients receiving written information scored significantly higher (48% correct answers) than the patients receiving verbal information (38% correct answers). Conclusions: Written information sheets contribute to the process of informed consent. As patients' recall of information is generally poor, the sheets may also be useful medicolegally, as a permanent record of what was discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract