Potential impact on birth rates of reforms in laws governing contraceptive marketing

This article attempts to estimate the potential impact on birth rates of relaxing various legal restrictions on the marketing of contraceptives and to identify countries offering particular potential for such policies. The approach is through a quasi-experimental cross-sectional analysis of various configurations of laws in 82 countries. Results indicate that relaxation of a complex of interrelated restrictions offers the potential to lower birth rates and hence population growth by a full percentage point. The estimates are made in context of an analysis of covariance in which other key determinants of birth rates (measures of economic, demographic and health status) are also considered. While the cross-sectional design does not allow assessment of time frame for the impact of such changes, some guidance is available from the experience of two countries.     

Heuristic approaches to decision-making in the delivery of primary health care within developing regions

The delivery of primary health care (PHC) services is now recognized as a crucial element in the development of low-income regions. Effective delivery of these services requires the ability to solve a variety of policy decision problems. Research has demonstrated the utility of operations research/management science (OR/MS) models and methodologies in the analysis and solution of such problems. However, this approach may be limited in some regions by the data and computational requirements of the models. Intuitive approaches in the spirit of OR/MS models, termed heuristics, can provide an effective alternative in such cases. The current paper proposes a general heuristic procedure for solving problems of PHC delivery in developing regions. The heuristic is applied, in detail, to the problem of identifying "best" community financing schemes for PHC services in low-income sections of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.     

Decision making in joined criminal trials: The influence of charge similarity,evidence similarity,and limiting instructions

The present research investigated decision-making processes in joined trials of multiple offenses. Subjects judged videotaped trials of three joined charges in a factorial design that varied charge similarity, evidence similarity, and judges' instructions designed to reduce judgement biases; or judged one of several charges presented individually. The results indicated that subjects were more likely to convict a defendant in a joined trial than on the same charge tried by itself, particularly when the charge was presented in the third position. Convictions were more frequent when joined charges were similar, and judges' instructions significantly reduced conviction rates. Subjects judging joined trials confused evidence among charges, rated the prosecution's evidence as stronger, and rated the defendent less favorably than subjects judging single trials. The findings were compared statistically to the results of previous research, and it was concluded that increased convictions in joined trials are robust effects.This research is based on part of a doctoral dissertation by S. Tanford at the University of Wisconsin. The research was supported by National Institute of Justice Grant No. 81-LJ-CX-0048 to S. Penrod.