PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 2231054

British perspective on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.

Abstract

The clinical approach to prevention, cogently documented in the Task Force guidelines, implies the medicalization of prevention. The concentration of resources on those most in need is efficient, the widening of physicians' responsibility is welcome, and the influence on the recipients diffuses into the community. The Task Force report, however, fails to stress the problems and the limitations of this approach. The adverse effects of "labeling" can be serious. They need to be measured and taken into account, and there should be no screening without counseling and long-term care; the latter cannot be guaranteed unless there is a comprehensive general practitioner system. Screening readily generates overmedication, particularly since many physicians lack the skills, the inclination, or the staff to provide expert and continuing health advice. Concern for high-risk individuals should be only one part of a much wider preventive strategy. This is illustrated by the close correlations between the prevalence of high-risk status and the population mean value (0.85 for hypertension vs. mean blood pressure, 0.97 for excess use of alcohol vs. population mean intake). The medical approach, important though it is, must not distract attention from the more fundamental population strategy of prevention.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G Rose. British perspective on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02600858

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Implementing emergency research requiring exception from informed consent, community consultation, and public disclosure.

Conducting emergency research in the out-of-hospital and emergency department setting is a challenge because of the inability of patients to provide informed consent in many situations. Federal guidelines allowing research under an exception from informed consent for emergency research have been established (21 CRF 50.24). Community consultation and public disclosure, 2 required components of obtaining this exception, are seen by many as a barrier to resuscitation research. This article will provide a brief overview of the history of the exception from informed consent for emergency research and summarize our methods recently used to successfully complete community consultation and public disclosure for a trial evaluating 2 devices used during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a large metropolitan area.

Attitude to Health↗