Search

Targeted transparency has become an essential tool for regulation. Through information disclosure, regulatory agencies try to get regulated companies to improve their practices and comply with regulations. In the past, regulation was associated with distrust in regulated sectors. Recent research suggests that regulation, especially targeted transparency, may also increase citizen trust in regulated sectors. However, empirical evidence on whether transparency as a regulatory tool undermines or decreases trust in a sector is lacking. We contribute to this debate by investigating the effect of targeted transparency on citizen trust through a large-scale representative survey experiment (n = 5,303). We used 12 transparency frames in three regulated domains in the Netherlands (consumer rights, healthcare safety, and nuclear plant safety). Our findings suggest that, in general, targeted transparency does not undermine trust, but has a positive effect on trust in regulated sectors. However, this effect is small and contextual, depending on the regulatory domain and type of transparency frame.

Supervisory bodies can intervene in organizational practices that may harm society, but their effectiveness to do so depends on their ability to make decisions reflectively and decisively. Are these tendencies incompatible with each other or can they go together? Can empowering leadership (i.e. participative, coaching, informing behaviors) stimulate reflectiveness and decisiveness? A 10-item Joint Decision-Making Questionnaire was developed and tested among supervisory officers (N = 87) and supervisory board members (N = 158). Reflectiveness and decisiveness were positively correlated, indicating that these tendencies can be reconciled in joint decision-making (Study 1). An examination of 44 supervisory teams further revealed that participative leadership relates to more reflectiveness and decisiveness, via cooperative trust and goal commitment (Study 2). Moreover, teams that experienced this team climate prior to COVID-19 reported that they acted more reflectively and decisively during this crisis (Study 3). Hence, participative leaders can foster reflectiveness and decisiveness, by promoting cooperative trust and goal commitment.

Background: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients face an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), even when classic cardiovascular risk factors are considered. Plasma dephosphorylated-uncarboxylated Matrix Gla-protein (dp-ucMGP), an inactive form of MGP, is associated with increased CVD risk. Smooth muscle cells, implicated in SSc’s development, are the primary dp-ucMGP producers. This study assessed dp-ucMGP levels and initial CVD events in early-diagnosed SSc patients, investigating its potential as a CVD and all-cause mortality predictor over time. Methods:In a cohort of 87 SSc patients (excluding those with pre-existing CVD or on dialysis), baseline dp-ucMGP levels were measured, along with cardiovascular risk factors. Validation involved assessing dp-ucMGP in a subset of treatment-naive SSc patients. Results: A significantly elevated median dp-ucMGP level of 634 pmol/L (IQR 301) compared with healthy controls (dp-ucMGP < 393 pmol/L; p < 0.001) was observed. Validation in a treatment-naive SSc patient subset yielded similar results (median 589 pmol/L; IQR 370). During a median 10.5-year follow-up among 78 SSc patients, 33.3% experienced their first CVD event, independent of traditional risk factors. Elevated dp-ucMGP levels (>634 pmol/L) correlated with a higher risk of CVD and/or death (log-rank test: p < 0.01). Conclusions: In summary, dp-ucMGP emerges as a novel biomarker in SSc patients, with elevated levels indicating an increased risk of CVD and/or mortality in this population.

Een denkfout (of bias) ontstaat wanneer mensen op basis van aannames onbewust een verkeerde conclusie trekken. Onder toezichthouders (Ntotaal = 339) is onderzocht in hoeverre zij een potentiële ‘blinde vlek’ vertonen voor hun eigen denkfouten en hoe deze blinde vlek kan worden beïnvloed. Uit dit onderzoek bleek dat toezichthouders inderdaad inschatten dat denkfouten meer bij anderen voorkomen dan bij henzelf, en dat zelfwaargenomen objectiviteit deze blinde vlek kan vergroten. Ook bleek dat toezichthouders die waakzamer zijn in mindere mate een blinde vlek hebben voor hun eigen denkfouten. Toezichthouders geruststellen over het risico op denkfouten in de besluitvorming maakte hen juist minder waakzaam.

Decision transparency is often proposed as a way to maintain or even increase citizen trust, yet this assumption is still untested in the context of regulatory agencies. We test the effect of transparency of a typical decision tradeoff in regulatory enforcement: granting forbearance or imposing a sanction. We employed a representative survey experiment (n = 1,546) in which we test the effect of transparency in general (providing information about a decision or not) and the effect of specific types of transparency (process or rationale transparency). We do this for agencies supervising financial markets, education, and health care. We find that overall decision transparency significantly increases citizen trust in only two of the three agencies. Rationale transparency has a more pronounced positive effect only for the Education Inspectorate. We conclude that the overall effect of decision transparency is positive but that the nature of the regulatory domain may weaken or strengthen this effect.

The severity of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is associated with neutrophil extracellular trap (NET) formation. During NET formation, cytotoxic extracellular histones are released, the presence of which is linked to the initiation and progression of several acute inflammatory diseases. Here we study the presence and evolution of extracellular histone H3 and several other neutrophil-related molecules and damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) in the plasma of 117 COVID-19-positive ICU patients. We demonstrate that at ICU admission the levels of histone H3, MPO, and DNA-MPO complex were all significantly increased in COVID-19-positive patients compared to control samples. Furthermore, in a subset of 54 patients, the levels of each marker remained increased after 4+ days compared to admission. Histone H3 was found in 28% of the patients on admission to the ICU and in 50% of the patients during their stay at the ICU. Notably, in 47% of histone-positive patients, we observed proteolysis of histone in their plasma. The overall presence of histone H3 during ICU stay was associated with thromboembolic events and secondary infection, and non-cleaved histone H3 was associated with the need for vasoactive treatment, invasive ventilation, and the development of acute kidney injury. Our data support the validity of treatments that aim to reduce NET formation and additionally underscore that more targeted therapies focused on the neutralization of histones should be considered as treatment options for severe COVID-19 patients.

Assessment of Kifid (Dutch Institute for Financial Disputes), commissioned by the Dutch Minister of Finance

Can a government agency mitigate the negative effect of “bad news” on public trust? To answer this question, we carried out a baseline survey to measure public trust five days before a major press release involving bad news about an error committed by an independent regulatory agency in the Netherlands. Two days after the agency’s press release, we carried out a survey experiment to test the effects on public trust of the press release itself as well as related newspaper articles. Results show that the press release had no negative effect on trustworthiness, which may be because the press release “steals thunder”(ie breaks the bad news before the news media discovered it) and focuses on a “rebuilding strategy”(ie offering apologies and focusing on future improvements). In contrast, the news articles mainly focused on what went wrong, which affected the competence dimension of trust but not the other dimensions (benevolence and integrity). We conclude that strategic communication by an agency can break negative news to people without necessarily breaking trust in that agency. And although effects of negative news coverage on trustworthiness were observed, the magnitude of these effects should not be overstated.