Self-exclusion from health care in women at high risk for postpartum depression

Background A significant proportion of women who are vulnerable to postnatal depression refuse to engage in treatment programmes. Little is known about them, other than some general demographic characteristics. In particular, their access to health care and their own and their infants' health outcomes are uncharted. Methods We conducted a nested cohort case-control study, using data from computerized health systems, and general practitioner (GP) and maternity records, to identify the characteristics, health service contacts, and maternal and infant health outcomes for primiparous antenatal clinic attenders at high risk for postnatal depression who either refused (self-exclusion group) or else agreed (take-up group) to receive additional Health Visiting support in pregnancy and the first 2 months postpartum. Results Women excluding themselves from Health Visitor support were younger and less highly educated than women willing to take up the support. They were less likely to attend midwifery, GP and routine Health Visitor appointments, but were more likely to book in late and to attend accident and emergency department (A&E). Their infants had poorer outcome in terms of gestation, birthweight and breastfeeding. Differences between the groups still obtained when age and education were taken into account for midwifery contacts, A&E attendance and gestation;the difference in the initiation of breast feeding was attenuated, but not wholly explained, by age and education. Conclusion A subgroup of psychologically vulnerable childbearing women are at particular risk for poor access to health care and adverse infant outcome. Barriers to take-up of services need to be understood in order better to deliver care.

Critical review of health effects of soyabean phyto-oestrogens in post-menopausal women

A consensus view of soyabean phyto-oestrogens in clinical interventions in post-menopausal women is presented that is based on data from the EU-funded project Phytohealth. The phyto-oestrogens, primarily genistein and daidzein, were given as soyabean-protein isolates, whole-soyabean foods or extracts, supplements or pure compounds. A comprehensive literature search was conducted with well-defined inclusion or exclusion criteria. For areas for which substantial research exists only placebo-controlled double-blind randomised controlled trials (RCT) conducted on healthy post-menopausal women were included. For emerging areas all available human studies in post-menopausal women were reviewed. In order to make cross comparisons between studies the doses of isoflavones were calculated as aglycone equivalents. There is a suggestion, but no conclusive evidence, that isoflavones from the sources studied so far have a beneficial effect on bone health. The consumption of whole-soyabean foods and soyabean-protein isolates has some beneficial effects on lipid markers of cardiovascular risk. The consumption of isolated isoflavones does not affect blood lipid levels or blood pressure, although it may improve endothelial function. For menopausal symptoms there is currently limited evidence that soyabean-protein isolates, soyabean foods or red-clover (Trifolium pratense L.) extract are effective but soyabean isoflavone extracts may be effective in reducing hot flushes. There are too few RCT studies to reach conclusions on the effects of isoflavones on breast cancer, colon cancer, diabetes or cognitive function. The health benefits of soyabean phyto-oestrogens in healthy post-menopausal women are subtle and even some well-designed studies do not show protective effects. Future studies should focus on high-risk post-menopausal women, especially in the areas of diabetes, CVD, breast cancer and bone health.

Access, equity and the role of rights in health care

Modern health care rhetoric promotes choice and individual patient rights as dominant values. Yet we also accept that in any regime constrained by finite resources, difficult choices between patients are inevitable. How can we balance rights to liberty, on the one hand, with equity in the allocation of scarce resources on the other? For example, the duty of health authorities to allocate resources is a duty owed to the community as a whole, rather than to specific individuals. Macro-duties of this nature are founded on the notion of equity and fairness amongst individuals rather than personal liberty. They presume that if hard choices have to be made, they will be resolved according to fair and consistent principles which treat equal cases equally, and unequal cases unequally. In this paper, we argue for greater clarity and candour in the health care rights debate. With this in mind, we discuss (1) private and public rights, (2) negative and positive rights, (3) procedural and substantive rights, (4) sustainable health care rights and (5) the New Zealand booking system for prioritising access to elective services. This system aims to consider: individual need and ability to benefit alongside the resources made available to elective health services in an attempt to give the principles of equity practical effect. We describe a continuum on which the merits of those, sometimes competing, values-liberty and equity-can be evaluated and assessed.

Health care rights and NHS rationing: turning theory into practice

How should we understand the nature of patients’ right in public health care systems? Are health care rights different to rights under a private contract for car insurance? This article distinguishes between public and private rights and the relevance of community interests and notions of social solidarity. It discusses the distinction between political and civil rights, and social and economic rights and the inherently political and redistributive nature of the latter. Nevertheless, social and economic rights certainly give rise to “rights” enforceable by the courts. In the UK (as in many other jurisdictions), the courts have favoured a “procedural” approach to the question, in which the courts closely scrutinise decisions and demand high standards of rationality from decision-makers. However, although this is the general rule, the article also discusses a number of exceptional cases where “substantive” remedies are available which guarantee patients access to the care they need.