No abstract

If these findings apply to the whole registered population, the national de-ghosting exercise is likely to result in large changes to the list size of some practices. Without correcting for list inflation, primary care research based on patient list size as the denominator may underestimate various measures of GP activity, particularly in deprived inner city areas. Resource allocation is also likely to be distorted by differences in list inflation.

No abstract

Rural, agricultural and informal‐sector workers have often beendenied the social security protection to which other economic sectors of populations have had access, and this is particularly true in the case of developing countries. There are also other important groups which have few or no rights to social security protection, such as family, domestic and casual workers. The lack of coverage is disturbing, as witnessed by the frequency with which this topic appears on social security meeting agendas worldwide, and particularly so since these sectors, as a whole form a very large proportion of the populations of many countries. Certainly there are difficulties of a practical nature which inhibit extension of coverage to these groups. So what can social security systems do? What kind of coverage is best suited to the needs of these groups? This article, based on papers presented at an ISSA Regional Meeting for Asia and the Pacific held in Manila in 1992, analyses the issues and makes some suggestions for a strategy relating to extension of coverage.

SummaryWe report a proving of Pulsatilla 3x conducted during three months of 1978 with 52 volunteers in North West England.The study included a double blind cross-over administration of placebo or medicated tablets in a manner intended to provide control as well as test phases.Two important findings are reported. First, that the results obtained failed to give statistically significant evidence for the effects of Pulsatilla 3x. Second, that the reported effects clearly indicated a “trial response”. That is, a response to the process of the trial rather than to the agent being proved.The significance and implications of these findings are discussed.