Understanding risk-based licensing schemes for alcohol outlets: A key informant perspective.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Risk-based alcohol licensing (RBL) has been introduced in several jurisdictions in Australia, New Zealand and Canada with the intention of reducing harm in and around alcohol outlets. RBL involves tailoring licence fees or regulatory agency monitoring levels according to risk criteria such as trading hours, venue size and compliance history. The aim of this study was to document key informant perspectives including their perceptions of the purpose of RBL, how it works and its active ingredients. DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with 28 key informants, including four government policy makers, four liquor licensing representatives, four local council members, eight police officers, six licensees, one academic and one community advocate from Victoria, Queensland, the Australian Capital Territory and Ontario, Canada. We analysed the transcripts using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Informants varied in their opinions about whether RBL achieved its objective of reducing alcohol-related harm. They identified difficulties in enforcing the compliance history component of the scheme due to loopholes in legislation as a major shortfall, and the need to apply RBL to packaged liquor (off-licence) outlets. They also discussed the need to consider outlet density associated with the location of a venue when assessing venue risk. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: RBL schemes vary by jurisdiction and emphasise different components. In general, informants surmised that RBL as implemented has probably had little or no preventive effect but suggested that it may be effective with greater monitoring and penalties large enough to deter bad practice.

Comparison of butterfly volumetric modulated arc therapy to full arc with or without deep inspiration breath hold for the treatment of mediastinal lymphoma.

PURPOSE: Radiotherapy is an effective treatment for mediastinal lymphoma but induces late effects including cardiac toxicity and secondary breast and lung cancer. Therefore reducing the dose to these organs is vital. We compared full arc volumetric modulated arc therapy (F-VMAT) against limited angle 'Butterfly' VMAT (B-VMAT) on free breathing (FB) and deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) computed tomography scans. The aim was to assess the benefits of B-VMAT over F-VMAT and to establish if the addition of DIBH results is a cumulative benefit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: F-VMAT and B-VMAT plans were calculated for 20 consecutive patients (15 females) with mediastinal lymphoma on both FB and DIBH scans. The planning target volume V95% was kept comparable between all plans while reducing organ doses as much as possible. RESULTS: B-VMAT significantly reduced low lung doses (V5-10), while F-VMAT was better for higher lung doses (V20-30). DIBH further improved lung doses for both types of plans. DIBH B-VMAT produced the lowest mean lung dose. With FB, heart doses were slightly higher for B-VMAT but the maximum difference was small (0.8% for V20) and only statistically significant for V10-20. The mean heart dose increased by only 0.1 Gy. The addition of DIBH however significantly reduced heart doses. While DIBH F-VMAT had the lowest heart doses, the difference was small compared with DIBH B-VMAT. B-VMAT significantly reduced breast V4 while DIBH reduced the V10. CONCLUSION: B-VMAT and DIBH are both effective in reducing organ doses and the dosimetric benefit is additive for some parameters and complementary for others.

Do members of the British public know how to contact emergency medical services when abroad?

There is increased demand for emergency healthcare by the public when abroad. This study aimed to investigate adults' reported level of knowledge about how to contact emergency healthcare services while abroad. A street survey was administered at various times, over several days, to 554 members of the general public who had been abroad in the previous 18 months. Only 33.6% [95% confidence interval (29.6%-37.7%)] of respondents reported that they knew the emergency medical number for the country last visited. This did not differ by sex (34.2% males vs. 33% females). Those fluent in the language of the country last visited were more likely to report knowing the emergency number for that country (54%), compared with those who were not (24.8%) (P<0.001). It is concerning that the majority of the general public do not appear to know how to contact emergency medical services while abroad. More targeted health education campaigns that address this are needed.