Securing one's livelihood. Philanthropy in a mixed economy of welfare in the early 20th century

Since the late 19th century different social actors have played an important role in providing social security in Switzerland. Cooperatives, philanthropic organisations, social insurances, and the poor relief of the communes were all part of a "mixed economy of welfare". This article examines how the different actors in this "mixed economy" worked together, and asks what forms of help they supplied. It raises the question of whether a dichotomy between public and private forms of relief can be traced in the Swiss case. Did democratically legitimised processes of redistribution shape the social security system? Or was social security rather funded by private relief programs? The author argues that in the early 20th century, a complex public-private mix structured the Swiss welfare state and the poor often depended on both public and private funding. In this system, financially potent philanthropic organisations successfully contested the legal power of public actors.

Outcome discrepancies and selective reporting: impacting the leading journals?

BACKGROUND Selective outcome reporting of either interesting or positive research findings is problematic, running the risk of poorly-informed treatment decisions. We aimed to assess the extent of outcome and other discrepancies and possible selective reporting between registry entries and published reports among leading medical journals. METHODS Randomized controlled trials published over a 6-month period from July to December 31st, 2013, were identified in five high impact medical journals: The Lancet, British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Journal of American Medical Association were obtained. Discrepancies between published studies and registry entries were identified and related to factors including registration timing, source of funding and presence of statistically significant results. RESULTS Over the 6-month period, 137 RCTs were found. Of these, 18% (n = 25) had discrepancies related to primary outcomes with the primary outcome changed in 15% (n = 20). Moreover, differences relating to non-primary outcomes were found in 64% (n = 87) with both omission of pre-specified non-primary outcomes (39%) and introduction of new non-primary outcomes (44%) common. No relationship between primary or non-primary outcome change and registration timing (prospective or retrospective; P = 0.11), source of funding (P = 0.92) and presence of statistically significant results (P = 0.92) was found. CONCLUSIONS Discrepancies between registry entries and published articles for primary and non-primary outcomes were common among trials published in leading medical journals. Novel approaches are required to address this problem.