Screening primary-care patients forgoing health care for economic reasons.

BACKGROUND: Growing social inequities have made it important for general practitioners to verify if patients can afford treatment and procedures. Incorporating social conditions into clinical decision-making allows general practitioners to address mismatches between patients' health-care needs and financial resources. OBJECTIVES: Identify a screening question to, indirectly, rule out patients' social risk of forgoing health care for economic reasons, and estimate prevalence of forgoing health care and the influence of physicians' attitudes toward deprivation. DESIGN: Multicenter cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-seven general practitioners working in the French-speaking part of Switzerland enrolled a random sample of patients attending their private practices. MAIN MEASURES: Patients who had forgone health care were defined as those reporting a household member (including themselves) having forgone treatment for economic reasons during the previous 12 months, through a self-administered questionnaire. Patients were also asked about education and income levels, self-perceived social position, and deprivation levels. KEY RESULTS: Overall, 2,026 patients were included in the analysis; 10.7% (CI95% 9.4-12.1) reported a member of their household to have forgone health care during the 12 previous months. The question "Did you have difficulties paying your household bills during the last 12 months" performed better in identifying patients at risk of forgoing health care than a combination of four objective measures of socio-economic status (gender, age, education level, and income) (R(2) = 0.184 vs. 0.083). This question effectively ruled out that patients had forgone health care, with a negative predictive value of 96%. Furthermore, for physicians who felt powerless in the face of deprivation, we observed an increase in the odds of patients forgoing health care of 1.5 times. CONCLUSION: General practitioners should systematically evaluate the socio-economic status of their patients. Asking patients whether they experience any difficulties in paying their bills is an effective means of identifying patients who might forgo health care.

Cinéastes indépendants, politique fédérale du cinéma et co-production du 'Nouveau cinéma suisse', 1963-1970. Contribution à une sociologie de l'innovation artistique

Ce travail s'intéresse aux modalités d'émergence et d'institutionnalisation d'un nouveau régime de création artistique, plus connu sous le nom de «Nouveau cinéma suisse ».Dans les années 1960-1970, l'arrivée du Nouveau cinéma suisse a bouleversé les manières de faire du cinéma en Suisse et a attiré l'attention sur le septième art helvétique. Comment une innovation artistique parvient-elle à s'imposer ? Comment un consensus autour d'une nouvelle forme artistique et de son mode de production émerge et se stabilise-t-il ? Quel rôle jouent les acteurs et les institutions dans ce processus ? Enfin, quelles sont les relations entre cette situation en devenir et les oeuvres créées dans ces conditions ? Au delà dé ces interrogations, c'est un questionnement théorique, épistémologique qui a motivé cette recherche. A l'image de la sociologie elle-même, l'analyse sociologique de l'art a été traversée, ces dernières années, pas de nombreux débats. Trop souvent, la réflexion s'appuie - ou trébuche -sur des dichotomies convenues :analyse interne /externe de l'art, déterminisme /indétermination des acteurs, reflet /autonomie des oeuvres. Quels sont les outils et les approches que propose la discipline pour analyser un tel objet, quels enseignements peut-on titrer de leur mise à l'épreuve sur un cas concret ? Quel est le défi lancé par le Nouveau cinéma suisse à la sociologie de l'art ?Mais commençons par le début car le point initial de cette longue entreprise était en réalité tout autre.

Médecine sociate en 2013: quand la précarité précède la pauvrete [Social medicine: does it still make sense in 2013?].

Social medicine is a medicine that seeks to understand the impact of socio-economic conditions on human health and diseases in order to improve the health of a society and its individuals. In this field of medicine, determining the socio-economic status of individuals is generally not sufficient to explain and/or understand the underlying mechanisms leading to social inequalities in health. Other factors must be considered such as environmental, psychosocial, behavioral and biological factors that, together, can lead to more or less permanent damages to the health of the individuals in a society. In a time where considerable progresses have been made in the field of the biomedicine, does the practice of social medicine in a primary care setting still make sense?