Browsing by Subject "risk assessment"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Auditor perceptions of client narcissism as a fraud attitude risk factor
    (2012) Johnson, Eric N.; Kuhn, John R.; Apostolou, Barbara; Hassell, John M.
    Auditing standards prescribe that the auditor should consider client management’s attitude toward fraud when making fraud risk assessments. However, little guidance is provided in the auditing standards or the existing fraud literature on observable indicators of fraud attitude. We test whether observable indicators of narcissism, a personality trait linked to unethical and fraudulent behavior, is viewed by auditors as an indicator of increased fraud attitude risk. We administered an experiment to 101 practicing auditors from one international public accounting firm who assessed fraud risk based on a scenario in which client manager narcissism (attitude) and fraud motivation were each manipulated at two levels (low and high). Our results show that narcissistic client behavior and fraud motivation are significantly and positively related to auditors’ overall fraud risk assessments. Implications of these findings for further research and the auditing profession are discussed.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Balancing the Risks and Benefits of Benzodiazepines
    (AMA, 2021-01) Hirschtritt, Matthew E.; Olfson, Mark; Kroenke, Kurt; Medicine, School of Medicine
    In September 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced an anticipated update to the boxed warning on all benzodiazepines to explicitly “address the serious risks of abuse, addiction, physical dependence, and withdrawal reactions” among this class of medications.1 The current boxed warning for benzodiazepines (eg, alprazolam, lorazepam, clonazepam, diazepam) highlights only the risks of coadministration of opioids and benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines are prescribed for multiple indications, most notably generalized anxiety disorder, panic, social phobia, insomnia, and seizure prophylaxis and rescue.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Burning embers: towards more transparent and robust climate-change risk assessments
    (Nature, 2020) Zommers, Zinta; Marbaix, Philippe; Fischlin, Andreas; Ibrahim, Zelina Z.; Magnan, Alexandre K.; Pörtner, Hans-Otto; Howden, Mark; Calvin, Katherine; Warner, Koko; Thiery, Wim; Sebesvari, Zita; Davin, Edouard L.; Evans, Jason P.; Rosenzweig, Cynthia; O'Neill, Brian C.; Patwardhan, Anand; Warren, Rachel; van Aalst, Maarten; Hulbert, Margot; Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports provide policy-relevant insights about climate impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptation through a process of peer-reviewed literature assessments underpinned by expert judgement. An iconic output from these assessments is the burning embers diagram, first used in the Third Assessment Report to visualize reasons for concern, which aggregate climate-change-related impacts and risks to various systems and sectors. These burning embers use colour transitions to show changes in the assessed level of risk to humans and ecosystems as a function of global mean temperature. In this Review, we outline the history and evolution of the burning embers and associated reasons for concern framework, focusing on the methodological approaches and advances. While the assessment framework and figure design have been broadly retained over time, refinements in methodology have occurred, including the consideration of different risks, use of confidence statements, more formalized protocols and standardized metrics. Comparison across reports reveals that the risk level at a given temperature has generally increased with each assessment cycle, reflecting accumulating scientific evidence. For future assessments, an explicit, transparent and systematic process of expert elicitation is needed to enhance comparability, quality and credibility of burning embers.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Hidden Health Hazards: Toxins in Museum Collections
    (ISEE Conference, 2021-08) Whaley, Sarah; Barber, Corey; Cusack-McVeigh, Holly
    Museum collections frequently contain hidden hazards that put staff at risk. The application of chemical pesticides, including arsenic and mercury, on collection objects began in the eighteenth century as a preventive measure to protect against insects, rodents, and mold. In addition to these poisons, some collection objects are made of materials inherently hazardous to human health including silica dust, lead paint, and infectious agents. It is important to ensure all museum staff who come into direct contact with collection objects are aware of exposure risks and know how to identify and protect themselves from these often-invisible hazards. Through a literature review including research from the Canadian Conservation Institute, Cambridge University Press, and PubMed, we have identified five hazardous materials that pose a threat to museum workers. We have highlighted policies and practices staff can use to protect themselves from these hazards.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Race and Gender Disparities in Physician Judgements of Opioid-related Risk in Patients with Chronic Pain
    (2024-08) Grant, Alexis; Hirsh, Adam T.; Cyders, Melissa; Kroenke, Kurt; Wu, Wei
    Opioid-related risk assessment is a key component of safe and effective pain care. Prior opioid misuse is a known predictor of opioid-related risk, but its predictive quality depends on the specific behavior – some behaviors confer high risk (red flag), whereas others confer medium (yellow flag) or low risk (green flag). Race and gender disparities in opioid prescribing are well documented, but little is known about how patient race and gender interact with prior opioid misuse to impact physicians’ risk assessments. One hundred physicians were presented 12 virtual patients (videos and text vignettes) with chronic pain who varied by race (Black, White), gender (female, male), and prior opioid nonadherence (red, yellow, green flag). Physicians made assessment decisions about patients’ risk for future opioid-related adverse events, abuse/misuse, diversion, and opioid use disorder (OUD). Linear mixed effects models examined the independent and interactive effects of patient race, gender, and prior opioid misuse on physicians’ risk assessments. Results indicated that severity of prior opioid nonadherence significantly impacted physicians’ risk assessments for future opioid-related adverse events, prescription misuse/abuse, diversion, and OUD. However, these effects differed based on patient gender. Men with yellow flag behaviors were rated at higher risk for adverse events, abuse/misuse, and OUD relative to women with yellow flag behaviors. Conversely, among patients with red flag behaviors, women were rated at higher risk for adverse events, abuse/misuse, and OUD relative to men. Patient race did not impact physicians’ risk assessments. These findings inform efforts to enhance equity and outcomes in chronic pain care.