Health inequalities in England, Scotland and Wales: stakeholders' accounts and policy compared.

OBJECTIVES: The election of a Labour government in 1997 brought the issue of health inequalities firmly back on to the policy agenda across the UK. Since then, in the wake of devolution, the need to tackle health inequalities has been highlighted as a policy priority in all three mainland UK countries, albeit with varying degrees of emphasis. This paper reports on a major cross-national study, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, investigating how National Health Service bodies, local councils and partnerships make sense of their work on health inequalities, and examining the difference made by the contrasting approaches that have been taken to performance assessment in England, Wales and Scotland. STUDY DESIGN: Case studies, semi-structured interviews and analysis of key policy statements. METHODS: In order to explore how health inequalities have been approached by the three governments (noting that there was a change in governments in Wales and Scotland during this time), key policy statements published between May 1997 and May 2007 were analysed. Concurrently, data from stakeholder interviews carried out in 2006 in case study areas in each country were analysed to determine the extent of alignment between policy and practice at local level. RESULTS: This paper suggests that claims about the extent of health policy divergence in post-devolution Britain may have been exaggerated. It finds that, whilst the three countries have taken differing approaches to performance assessment and the setting of targets, policy approaches to health inequalities up until 2007 appear to have been remarkably similar. Furthermore, the first round of interview data suggest that variations in local understandings of, and responses to, health inequalities cannot always be clearly distinguished along national lines. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the policy analysis, devolution in the UK does not appear to have resulted in substantively different national policy approaches to health inequalities. Indeed, the overall analysis suggests that (prior to the 2007 elections in Scotland and Wales) the differences between local areas within countries may be of as much interest as those between countries.

2-Chloroprocaine and bupivacaine are unreliable indicators of intravascular injection in the premedicated patient.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Epinephrine-containing test doses for detection of intravascular injection during epidural anesthesia may be unreliable or hazardous in beta-blocked, elderly, or pregnant patients. Subtoxic injections of lidocaine have been used as an alternative marker of intravascular injection in unpremedicated patients. We studied two groups of premedicated patients and unpremedicated subjects to evaluate the reliability of the local anesthetics bupivacaine (B) and 2-chloroprocaine (2-CP) as test dose injections. METHODS: Thirty ASA I and II subjects received blinded randomized injections of 2-CP, B, or normal saline via a peripheral vein. RESULTS: In group I, 10 healthy unpremedicated volunteers universally recognized injection of 90 mg 2-CP or 25 mg B, but did not reliably detect the injection of 60 mg 2-CP. In group II, 20 patients premedicated with 1 microg/kg fentanyl and 30 microg/kg midazolam could not reliably detect similar injections. Sixteen responded to the injection of 90 mg 2-CP, while 13 detected the 25 mg B test dose. A blinded observer rated only 12 of the subjective reports as conclusive of detection of intravascular injection after each drug. There were no false-positive reports in any group. CONCLUSIONS: While 90 mg 2-CP or 25 mg B may be reliable alternatives to epinephrine test doses in unpremedicated subjects, they are unreliable indicators of intravascular injection in the premedicated patient.

Social surveys in HIV/AIDS: telling or writing? A comparison of interview and postal methods.

We compare a probability sample postal questionnaire survey and a quota controlled interview survey, and review the literature on these subjects. In contrast to other studies, where quota samples were not representative because of biased selection of respondents by interviewers, our quota sample was representative. Response rates were similar in our postal and interview surveys (74 and 77%, respectively), although many previous similar postal surveys had poor response rates. As in other comparison studies, costs were higher in our interview survey, substantive responses and the quality of responses to closed-ended questions were similar, and responses to open-ended questions were better in the interview survey. 'Socially unacceptable' responses on sexual behaviour were less likely in interviews. Quota controlled surveys are appropriate in surveys on HIV/AIDS under certain circumstances, e.g. where the population parameters are well known, and where interviewers can gain access to the entire population. Postal questionnaires are better for obtaining information on sexual behaviour, if adequate steps are taken to improve response rates, and when in-depth answers are not needed. For most surveys in the HIV/AIDS field we recommend the postal method.