Search

The financialization of everyday life has received considerable attention since the 2008 global financial crisis. Financialization is thought to have created active financial subjects through the ability to participate in mainstream financial services. While the lived experience of these mainstream financial subjects has been the subject of close scrutiny, the experiences of financial subjects at the financial fringe have been rarely considered. In the UK, for example, the introduction of High-Cost, Short-Term Credit [HCSTC] or payday loan regulation was designed to protect vulnerable people from accessing unaffordable credit. Exploring the impact of HCSTC regulation is important due to the dramatic decline of the high-cost credit market which helped meet essential needs in an era of austerity. As such, the paper examines the impact of the HCSTC regulation on sixty-four financially marginalized individuals in the UK that are unable to access payday loans. First, we identify the range of socioeconomic strategies that individuals employ to manage their finances to create a typology of financial subjectivity at the financial fringe. Second, we demonstrate how the temporal and precarious nature of financial inclusion at the financial fringe adds nuance to existing debates of the everyday lived experience of financialization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundMedical patients are often screened for distress in the clinic using a questionnaire such as the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) while awaiting their consultation. However, might the context of the clinic artificially inflate the distress score? To address this question we aimed to determine whether those who scored high on the HADS in the clinic remained high scorers when reassessed later at home.MethodWe analysed data collected by a distress and depression screening service for cancer out-patients. All patients had completed the HADS in the clinic (on computer or on paper) prior to their consultation. For a period, patients with a high score (total of ⩾15) also completed the HADS again at home (over the telephone) 1 week later. We used these data to determine what proportion remained high scorers and the mean change in their scores. We estimated the effect of ‘regression to the mean’ on the observed change.ResultsOf the 218 high scorers in the clinic, most [158 (72.5%), 95% confidence interval (CI) 66.6–78.4] scored high at reassessment. The mean fall in the HADS total score was 1.74 (95% CI 1.09–2.39), much of which could be attributed to the estimated change over time (regression to the mean) rather than the context.ConclusionsPre-consultation distress screening in clinic is widely used. Reassuringly, it only modestly overestimates distress measured later at home and consequently would result in a small proportion of unnecessary further assessments. We conclude it is a reasonable and convenient strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]