ABSTRACT
The Public Health Act of 1860 introduced modern health legislation in Norway. The act was a consequence of the industrial revolution and was influenced by the European hygienic movement and the English Public Health Act of 1848. The act placed the responsibility for public health measures on the local authorities in accordance with contemporary political philosophy. The local board of health was chaired by the officer of health and made up by politically elected members. This system implied co-operation between professional and political interests in order to improve disease prevention and enforce public health measures. The part of the act that provided for local boards of health was in force until 1982; the chapter on communicable diseases was repealed in 1995. The fact that this legislation remained in force for so long may serve as an indication of the usefulness and flexibility of the act. Its main drawbacks were an insufficient financial basis and lack of the authority to introduce relevant sanctions.
Subject(s)
Health Policy/history , Legislation, Medical/history , Public Health/history , Europe , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , History, 19th Century , Humans , Norway , Public Health/legislation & jurisprudenceABSTRACT
The health services of Norway have changed over the last century in tune with the development of society. The health services are not only the result of scientific and technological progress, but also a product of changes in prevailing political and social conditions and ideologies. Quality assessment and concern for the ethical basis of the health services ought to be given priority in the years to come.
Subject(s)
Health Policy/history , Health Services/history , Health Policy/trends , Health Priorities , Health Services/trends , History, 20th Century , Hospitals/history , Hospitals/trends , Humans , Norway , Patient Admission , Preventive Medicine/history , Preventive Medicine/trends , Quality Assurance, Health Care , Socioeconomic FactorsABSTRACT
Efficacy and safety of the 1,5 benzodiazepine, clobazam, in comparison to the 1,4 benzodiazepine, diazepam, were controlled in sixty psychiatric out-patients over a period of three months. In the course of this long treatment period data were obtained confirming findings of shorter-lasting studies. Global assessment of the therapeutic efficacy and the total scores of the Hamilton Anxiety Scale revealed no significant the compounds. Both groups showed a significant (p less than 0.01) improvement in the total scores of the Hamilton Anxiety Scale after two weeks of treatment. Scores of the individual items indicated distinct spectra of action: Clobazam was more effective in diminishing anxious mood, whereas diazepam was better able to influence muscular symptoms of anxiety. The relevance of the findings for a more individualized therapy is pointed out.
