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]

Increasing attention has focused on the role of joint commissioning in health and social care policy and practice in England. This paper provides an empirical examination of the three discourses of joint commissioning developed from an interpretative analysis of documents by Dickinson et al. (2013; BMC Health Services Research, 13) and applied to data from our study exploring the role of knowledge in commissioning in England. Based on interviews with 92 participants undertaken between 2011 and 2013, our analysis confirms that the three discourses of prevention or empowerment or efficiency are used by professionals from across health and social care organisations to frame their experiences of joint commissioning. However, contrary to Dickinson et al., we also demonstrate that commissioners and other stakeholders combine and trade off these different discourses in unexpected ways. Moreover, at sites where the service user experience was central to the commissioning process (joint commissioning as empowerment), a greater sense of agreement about commissioning decisions appeared to have been established even when the other discourses were also in play. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background and aims: Estimating ‘return on investment’ (ROI) from smoking cessation interventions requires reach and effectiveness parameters for interventions for use in economic models such as the EQUIPT ROI tool ( http://roi.equipt.eu). This paper describes the derivation of these parameter estimates for England that can be adapted to create ROI models for use by other countries. Methods: Estimates were derived for interventions in terms of their reach and effectiveness in: (1) promoting quit attempts and (2) improving the success of quit attempts (abstinence for at least 12 months). The sources were systematic reviews of efficacy supplemented by individual effectiveness evaluations and national surveys. Findings: Quit attempt rates were estimated to be increased by the following percentages (with reach in parentheses): 20% by tax increases raising the cost of smoking 5% above the cost of living index (100%); 10% by enforced comprehensive indoor public smoking bans (100%); 3% by mass media campaigns achieving 400 gross rating points (100%); 40% by brief opportunistic physician advice (21%); and 110% by use of a licensed nicotine product to reduce cigarette consumption (12%). Quit success rates were estimated to be increased by the following ratios: 60% by single‐form nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (5%); 114% by NRT patch plus a faster‐acting NRT (2%);124% by prescribed varenicline (5%); 60% by bupropion (1%); 100% by nortriptyline (0%), 10) 298% by cytisine (0%); 40% by individual face‐to‐face behavioural support (2%); 37% by telephone support (0.5%); 88% by group behavioural support (1%); 63% by text messaging (0.5%); and 19% by printed self‐help materials (1%). There was insufficient evidence to obtain reliable, country‐specific estimates for interventions such as websites, smartphone applications and e‐cigarettes. Conclusions: Tax increases, indoor smoking bans, brief opportunistic physician advice and use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for smoking reduction can all increase population quit attempt rates. Quit success rates can be increased by provision of NRT, varenicline, bupropion, nortriptyline, cytisine and behavioural support delivered through a variety of modalities. Parameter estimates for the effectiveness and reach of these interventions can contribute to return on investment estimates in support of national or regional policy decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]