Suchergebnisse

Recent public policy in the UK has been dominated by a discourse which asserts that public expenditure on universal health coverage and welfare is a burden on the productive economy and unaffordable in what has been deemed a time of austerity. There is a widely held assumption that universal welfare provision, as offered by most modern welfare states, is a luxury, only afforded since World War 2 by wealthier economies. According to this view, if the productive efficiency of the economy falters, then this luxury should be trimmed back aggressively. Reduction in universal welfare will relieve enterprise, capital, and so-called hard-working families from the burdens of taxation required to fund these unproductive public services and (by implication) those unproductive families—the poor. We argue from history that there should be an end to setting the goal of economic growth against that of welfare provision. A healthy and prospering society needs both. We suggest that they feed each other. ; The paper arose from discussions in the St John's College Reading Group on Health Inequalities in Cambridge (http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/st-john's-reading-group-health-inequalities), which was supported by the Annual Fund of the College.

BACKGROUND: Evidence supports the use of pricing interventions in achieving healthier behaviour at population level. The public acceptability of this strategy continues to be debated throughout Europe, Australasia and USA. We examined public attitudes towards, and beliefs about the acceptability of pricing policies to change health-related behaviours in the UK. The study explores what underlies ideas of acceptability, and in particular those values and beliefs that potentially compete with the evidence presented by policy-makers. METHODS: Twelve focus group discussions were held in the London area using a common protocol with visual and textual stimuli. Over 300,000 words of verbatim transcript were inductively coded and analyzed, and themes extracted using a constant comparative method. RESULTS: Attitudes towards pricing policies to change three behaviours (smoking, and excessive consumption of alcohol and food) to improve health outcomes, were unfavourable and acceptability was low. Three sets of beliefs appeared to underpin these attitudes: (i) pricing makes no difference to behaviour; (ii) government raises prices to generate income, not to achieve healthier behaviour and (iii) government is not trustworthy. These beliefs were evident in discussions of all types of health-related behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: The low acceptability of pricing interventions to achieve healthier behaviours in populations was linked among these responders to a set of beliefs indicating low trust in government. Acceptability might be increased if evidence regarding effectiveness came from trusted sources seen as independent of government and was supported by public involvement and hypothecated taxation. ; The study was funded by the UK Department of Health Policy Research Programme (Policy Research Unit in Behaviour and Health [PR-UN-0409-10109]). The Department of Health had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation. The research was conducted independently of the funders, and the views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Health in England. ; This is the final version of the article. It was first available from Oxford University Press at http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv077

BACKGROUND: Evidence supports the use of pricing interventions in achieving healthier behaviour at population level. The public acceptability of this strategy continues to be debated throughout Europe, Australasia and USA. We examined public attitudes towards, and beliefs about the acceptability of pricing policies to change health-related behaviours in the UK. The study explores what underlies ideas of acceptability, and in particular those values and beliefs that potentially compete with the evidence presented by policy-makers. METHODS: Twelve focus group discussions were held in the London area using a common protocol with visual and textual stimuli. Over 300,000 words of verbatim transcript were inductively coded and analyzed, and themes extracted using a constant comparative method. RESULTS: Attitudes towards pricing policies to change three behaviours (smoking, and excessive consumption of alcohol and food) to improve health outcomes, were unfavourable and acceptability was low. Three sets of beliefs appeared to underpin these attitudes: (i) pricing makes no difference to behaviour; (ii) government raises prices to generate income, not to achieve healthier behaviour and (iii) government is not trustworthy. These beliefs were evident in discussions of all types of health-related behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: The low acceptability of pricing interventions to achieve healthier behaviours in populations was linked among these responders to a set of beliefs indicating low trust in government. Acceptability might be increased if evidence regarding effectiveness came from trusted sources seen as independent of government and was supported by public involvement and hypothecated taxation.

Introduction - We describe our experience of using the Medical Research Council framework on complex interventions to guide the development and evaluation of an intervention to prevent obesity by modifying infant feeding behaviours. Methods - We reviewed the epidemiological evidence on early life risk factors for obesity and interventions to prevent obesity in this age group. The review suggested prevention of excess weight gain in bottle-fed babies and appropriate weaning as intervention targets, hence we undertook systematic reviews to further our understanding of these behaviours. We chose theory and behaviour change techniques that demonstrated evidence of effectiveness in altering dietary behaviours. We subsequently developed intervention materials and evaluation tools and conducted qualitative studies with mothers (intervention recipients) and healthcare professionals (intervention deliverers) to refine these. We developed a questionnaire to assess maternal attitudes and feeding practices to understand the mechanism of any intervention effects. Conclusions - In addition to informing development of our specific intervention and evaluation materials, use of the Medical Research Council framework has helped to build a generalisable evidence base for early life nutritional interventions. However, the process is resource intensive and prolonged, and this should be taken into account by public health research funders. ; This work was supported by the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. The Baby Milk Trial is funded by the National Prevention Research Initiative (http://www.npri.org.uk Grant number MR/J000361/1). The Funding Partners relevant to this award are (in alphabetical order): Alzheimer's Research Trust; Alzheimer's Society; Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council; British Heart Foundation; Cancer Research UK; Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health Directorate; Department of Health; Diabetes UK; Economic and Social Research Council; Health and Social Care Research and Development Division of the Public Health Agency (HSC R&D Division); Medical Research Council; The Stroke Association; Wellcome Trust; Welsh Assembly Government; and World Cancer Research Fund. RL was funded by a MRC Population Health Fellowship (Grant number G070165). ; This is the final published version. It is also available from Hindawi at http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jobe/2014/646504/.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of coexisting chronic conditions (multimorbidity) is rising. Disease labels, however, give little information about impact on subjective health and personal illness experience. We aim to examine the strength of association of single and multimorbid physical chronic diseases with self-rated health in a middle-aged and older population in England, and to determine whether any association is mediated by depression and other psychosocial factors. METHODS: 25 268 individuals aged 39 to 79 years recruited from general practice registers in the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC-Norfolk) study, completed a survey including self-rated health, psychosocial function and presence of common physical chronic conditions (cancer, stroke, heart attack, diabetes, asthma/bronchitis and arthritis). Logistic regression models determined odds of "moderate/poor" compared to "good/excellent" health by condition and number of conditions adjusting for psychosocial measures. RESULTS: One-third (8252) reported one, around 7.5% (1899) two, and around 1% (194) three or more conditions. Odds of "moderate/poor" self-rated health worsened with increasing number of conditions (one (OR = 1.3(1.2-1.4)) versus three or more (OR = 3.4(2.3-5.1)), and were highest where there was comorbidity with stroke (OR = 8.7(4.6-16.7)) or heart attack (OR = 8.5(5.3-13.6)). Psychosocial measures did not explain the association between chronic diseases and multimorbidity with self-rated health.The relationship of multimorbidity with self-rated health was particularly strong in men compared to women (three or more conditions: men (OR = 5.2(3.0-8.9)), women OR = 2.1(1.1-3.9)). CONCLUSIONS: Self-rated health provides a simple, integrative patient-centred assessment for evaluation of illness in the context of multiple chronic disease diagnoses. Those registering in general practice in particular men with three or more diseases or those with cardiovascular comorbidities and with poorer self-rated health may warrant further assessment and intervention to improve their physical and subjective health. ; EPIC-Norfolk is supported by programme grants from Medical Research Council UK (G9502233, G0300128) and Cancer Research UK (C865/A2883), with additional support from the European Union, Stroke Association, Research into Ageing, British Heart Foundation, Department of Health and Wellcome Trust. ; This is the final version. It was first published by BioMed Central at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/15/185