Search

Aim In France, following a long-term decline in smoking prevalence, an increase in smoking was observed between 2005 and 2010, an unusual occurrence in countries in the 'mature' stage of the smoking epidemic. By contrast, smoking prevalence in England, the neighbouring country, continued its long-term decline. Methods We identified and translated recent reports on smoking and tobacco control in France and using these assessed the main data sources on smoking and compared them with similar sources in England, in order to explore possible explanations. In France, national smoking prevalence data are collected 5-yearly, minimizing opportunities for fine-grained analysis; the comparable study in England is implemented annually. Results We identified several probable causes of the recent increased prevalence of smoking in France, the primary one being the absence of sufficient price rises between 2005 and 2010, due probably to the lack of a robust tobacco control strategy, which also appeared to have empowered tobacco industry influence. Funding to compensate tobacconists appears to incentivize tobacco sales and is significantly higher than tobacco control funding. Conclusions Mindful of the limitations of a case-study approach, the absence of sufficient price rises in the context of a weak tobacco control strategy seems the most likely explanation for the recent increase in smoking prevalence in France. A new cancer control plan and a national smoking reduction programme have been proposed by the French government in 2014 which, depending on implementation, may reverse the trend. In both countries, the higher levels of smoking among the more disadvantaged groups are of great concern and require greater political leadership for effective action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims, and objectives: The article looks at how, during consultations, pregnant women identified as presenting an increased risk of giving birth to a child with an impairment, and practitioners in the field of prenatal diagnosis, decide whether or not to accept the risk of a miscarriage and proceed with a diagnostic examination. Methods: We conducted 63 observations of consultations in France and 22 in England. Participants were women for whom an elevated risk of abnormality had been identified and the practitioners involved in their care. Our analytical approach consisted in suspending the normative concepts of nondirectiveness and autonomy, and in drawing on Goffman's (1974) notion of "frame" to take account of the experiential and structural aspects that the protagonists bring into the (inter)actions. Results: We identified four frames: medico‐scientific expertise, medical authority, religious authority, and compassion. Observation of the ways in which the frames intertwine during consultations revealed configurations that facilitate or hinder the fluidity of the interactions and the decision‐making process. The medico‐scientific expertise frame, imposed by the guidelines, heavily dominated our observations, but frequently caused distress and misunderstanding. Temporary or sustained use of the compassion and/or medical authority frames could help to repair the discussion and create the conditions that enable women/couples to reach a decision. Variations in configuration highlighted the differences between practitioners in the two countries. Conclusions: Combining frames allows protagonists to exert reflective abilities and to maintain/restore interactions. The frame analysis promotes a vision of autonomy that is sociological, relational, and processual. The frames are anchored in different structural conditions in England and France. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]