Search

The prevention and delay of chronic disease is an increasing priority in all advanced health-care systems, but sustainable, effective and equitable approaches remain elusive. In a famous pioneering example in the UK, Julian Tudor Hart combined reactive and anticipatory care within routine consultations in primary medical care, while applying a population approach to delivery and audit. This approach combined the structural advantages of UK general practice, including universal coverage and the absence of\ud user fees, with his long-term commitment to individual patients, and was associated with a 28% reduction in premature mortality over a 25-year period. The more recent, and comprehensively evaluated Scottish National Health Service demonstration project, ‘Have a Heart Paisley’, took a different approach to cardiovascular prevention and health\ud improvement, using population screening for ascertainment, health coaches and referral to specific health improvement programmes for diet, smoking and exercise. We draw\ud from both examples to construct a conceptual framework for anticipatory care, based on active ingredients, programme pathways and whole system approaches. While the strengths of a family practice approach are coverage, continuity, co-ordination and longterm relationships, the larger health improvement programme offered additional resources and expertise. As theory and evidence accrue, the challenge is to combine the strengths of primary medical care and health improvement, in integrated, sustainable systems of anticipatory care, addressing the heterogeneity of individual needs and solutions, while achieving high levels of coverage, continuity, co-ordination and outcome.

Objective: To estimate trends between 1972-6 and 1996 in the prevalences of asthma and hay fever in adults. \ud Design: Two epidemiological surveys 20 years apart. Identical questions were asked about asthma, hay fever, and respiratory symptoms at each survey. \ud Setting: Renfrew and Paisley, two towns in the west of Scotland. \ud Subjects: 1477 married couples aged 45-64 participated in a general population survey in 1972-6; and 2338 offspring aged 30-59 participated in a 1996 survey. Prevalences were compared in 1708 parents and 1124 offspring aged 45-54. \ud Main outcome measures: Prevalences of asthma, hay fever, and respiratory symptoms. \ud Results: In never smokers, age and sex standardised prevalences of asthma and hay fever were 3.0% and 5.8% respectively in 1972-6, and 8.2% and 19.9% in 1996. In ever smokers, the corresponding values were 1.6% and 5.4% in 1972-6 and 5.3% and 15.5% in 1996. In both generations, the prevalence of asthma was higher in those who reported hay fever (atopic asthma). In never smokers, reports of wheeze not labelled as asthma were about 10 times more common in 1972-6 than in 1996. With a broader definition of asthma (asthma and/or wheeze), to minimise diagnostic bias, the overall prevalence of asthma changed little. However, diagnostic bias mainly affected non-atopic asthma. Atopic asthma increased more than twofold (prevalence ratio 2.52 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 6.28)) whereas the prevalence of non-atopic asthma did not change (1.00 (0.53 to 1.90)). \ud Conclusion: The prevalence of asthma in adults has increased more than twofold in 20 years, largely in association with trends in atopy, as measured indirectly by the prevalence of hay fever. No evidence was found for an increase in diagnostic awareness being responsible for the trend in atopic asthma, but increased awareness may account for trends in non-atopic asthma.

Background The study investigated differences in lung cancer mortality risk between social classes. Methods Twenty years of mortality follow-up were analysed in 7052 men and 8354 women from the Renfrew/Paisley general population study and 4021 working men from the Collaborative study. Results More manual than non-manual men and women smoked, reported morning phlegm, had worse lung function and lived in more deprived areas. Lung cancer mortality rates were higher in manual than non-manual men and women. Significantly higher lung cancer mortality risks were seen for manual compared to non-manual workers when adjusting for age only and adjustment for smoking reduced these risks to 1.41 (95% CI : 1.12-1.77) for men in the Renfrew/Paisley study, 1.28 (95% CI : 0.94-1.75) for women in the Renfrew/Paisley study and 1.43 (95% CI: 1.02-2.01) for men in the Collaborative study. Adjustment for lung function, phlegm and deprivation category attenuated the risks which were of borderline significance for men in the Renfrew/Paisley study and non significant for women in the Renfrew/Paisley study and men in the Collaborative study. Adding extra socioeconomic variables, available in the Collaborative study only, reduced the difference between the manual and non-manual social classes completely. Conclusions There is a difference in lung cancer risk between social classes, in addition to the effect of smoking. This can be explained by poor lung health, deprivation and poor socioeconomic conditions throughout life. As well as anti-smoking measures, reducing socioeconomic inequalities and targeting individuals with poor lung function for help with smoking cessation could help reduce future lung cancer incidence and mortality.