Social work, general practice and evidence-based policy in the collaborative care of older people: current problems and future possibilities

While collaborative (or joint) working between social services and primary healthcare continues to rise up the policy agenda, current policy is not based on sound evidence of benefit to either patients or the wider community. Both sets of practitioners report benefits for their own work from adopting new arrangements for collaboration. The underlying assumption behind much of this activity is that a greater degree of integration provides benefits to both users and their carers, a perspective that at times obscures the issue of resource availability, especially in the form of practical community services such as district nursing and home help. At the present time there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that formal arrangements for collaborative working (CW) are better than those forged informally between committed individuals or teams. Furthermore, arrangements for CW have not hitherto been widely evaluated in systematic studies with a comparative design and focus on outcomes for users and carers rather than on processes. In this paper we propose a number of process measures for future evaluation of CW: (1) study populations must be comparable; (2) details of how services are actually delivered must be obtained and colocation should not be assumed to mean collaboration; (3) care packages in areas of comparable resources should be examined; (4) both destinational outcomes and user‐defined evaluations of benefit should be considered; (5) possible disadvantages of integrated care also need to be actively considered; (6) evaluations should include an economic analysis. Those implementing new policies in Primary Care Trusts have, at present, little sound evidence to guide them in their innovative work. However, they should take the opportunity to rigorously test the advantages and disadvantages of collaboration.     

Alcohol, ALDH2, and esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis which illustrates the potentials and limitations of a Mendelian randomization approach.

Mendelian randomization, the use of common polymorphisms as surrogates for measuring exposure levels in epidemiologic studies, provides one method of assessing the causal nature of some environmental exposures. This can be illustrated by looking at the association between the ALDH2 polymorphism and esophageal cancer. Alcohol drinking is considered a risk factor for esophageal cancer, and exposure to high levels of acetaldehyde, the principal metabolite of alcohol, may be responsible for the increased cancer risk. The ability to metabolize acetaldehyde is encoded by the ALDH2 gene, which is polymorphic in some populations. The ALDH2*2 allele produces an inactive protein subunit, which is unable to metabolize acetaldehyde. An individual's genotype at this locus may influence their esophageal cancer risk through two mechanisms, first through influencing alcohol intake and second through influencing acetaldehyde levels. We have carried out a meta-analysis of studies looking at the ALDH2 genotype and esophageal cancer and found that risk was reduced among *2*2 homozygotes [odds ratio (OR), 0.36; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.16-0.80] and increased among heterozygotes (OR, 3.19; 95% CI, 1.86-5.47) relative to *1*1 homozygotes. This provides strong evidence that alcohol intake increases the risk of esophageal cancer and individuals whose genotype results in markedly lower intake, because they have an adverse reaction to alcohol are thus protected. This meta-analysis also provides evidence that acetaldehyde plays a carcinogenic role in esophageal cancer. The two different processes operating as a result of the ALDH2 genotype have implications for the interpretation of studies using the Mendelian randomization paradigm.     

Systematic information processing style and perseverative worry

This review examines the theoretical rationale for conceiving of systematic information processing as a proximal mechanism for perseverative worry. Systematic processing is characterised by detailed, analytical thought about issue-relevant information, and in this way, is similar to the persistent, detailed processing of information that typifies perseverative worry. We review the key features and determinants of systematic processing, and examine the application of systematic processing to perseverative worry. We argue that systematic processing is a mechanism involved in perseverative worry because (1) systematic processing is more likely to be deployed when individuals feel that they have not reached a satisfactory level of confidence in their judgement and this is similar to the worrier's striving to feel adequately prepared, to have considered every possible negative outcome/detect all potential danger, and to be sure that they will successfully cope with perceived future problems; (2) systematic processing and worry are influenced by similar psychological cognitive states and appraisals; and (3) the functional neuroanatomy underlying systematic processing is located in the same brain regions that are activated during worrying. This proposed mechanism is derived from core psychological processes and offers a number of clinical implications, including the identification of psychological states and appraisals that may benefit from therapeutic interventions for worry-based problems.