Miscellaneous amused views on topics in the domains of neuropsychiatric epidemiology, defined broadly to encompass the entire envirome and genome, including infective agents; alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs; traumatic events; you name it. Comments welcome. Will be moderated by a volunteer among one of our MSU program's chief fellows or alum.
I have not heard of prevescalation before, but it is an interesting concept. Would the intervention be considered secondary prevention, since an individual would be at risk for dependence or is it somewhere between primary and secondary prevention?
I have not heard of prevescalation before, but it is an interesting concept. Would the intervention be considered secondary prevention, since an individual would be at risk for dependence or is it somewhere between primary and secondary prevention?
New concept. Attribute to Niaura. I think it would be akin to HCV-->liver cancer progression. You'd be engaged in primary prevention of liver cancer in work with newly detected HCV-infected persons. If liver cancer already is present, and you're doing liver transplants, it would be primary prevention of death from liver cancer. Thoughts?
It seems like we can always think in terms of primary prevention, since we want to prevent conditions from progressing to worse conditions/end points. I like the idea of prevescalation, if that is replacing that framework. What about tertiary prevention, then? My impression of tertiary is that it is the prevention of a condition worsening/progressing. Is it within that given condition, as opposed to HCV-->liver cancer?
It seems like we can always think in terms of primary prevention, since we want to prevent conditions from progressing to worse conditions/end points. I like the idea of prevescalation, if that is replacing that framework. What about tertiary prevention, then? My impression of tertiary is that it is the prevention of a condition worsening/progressing. Is it within that given condition, as opposed to HCV-->liver cancer?
Gordon's concepts of 1^, 2^, and 3^ have been critiqued; seek out the Gordon paper and the critique(s), and please post the citations in this thread, and add your own thoughts in a note on universal, selected/selective, and indicated prevention tactics organized into public health strategies, if you would.
Gordon, R.S. (1983) "An operational classification of disease prevention" Public Health Rep, 98(2): 107-109. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1424415/?page=1
I think the prevention trilogy redefined in "An operational classification of disease prevention" is more logical than primary/secondary/tertiary terms. Especially, the selective category, where disease has not occurred but one is of higher risk. From my perspective primary/secondary/tertiary terms are somewhat grey with where disease free stratification by high risk groups belong. I have struggled with prevention distinctions in the past, but Gordon's paradigm seems more straight forward.
Samantha Bauer: JCA replied to SB on 14 Apr 2017, offline: Gordon's concepts of 1^, 2^, and 3^ have been critiqued; seek out the Gordon paper and the critique(s), and please post the citations in this thread, and add your own thoughts in a note on universal, selected/selective, and indicated prevention tactics organized into public health strategies, if you would.
Gordon, R.S. (1983) "An operational classification of disease prevention" Public Health Rep, 98(2): 107-109. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1424415/?page=1
I think the prevention trilogy redefined in "An operational classification of disease prevention" is more logical than primary/secondary/tertiary terms. Especially, the selective category, where disease has not occurred but one is of higher risk. From my perspective primary/secondary/tertiary terms are somewhat grey with where disease free stratification by high risk groups belong. I have struggled with prevention distinctions in the past, but Gordon's paradigm seems more straight forward.
I have not heard of prevescalation before, but it is an interesting concept. Would the intervention be considered secondary prevention, since an individual would be at risk for dependence or is it somewhere between primary and secondary prevention?
ReplyDeleteSamantha Bauer:
ReplyDeleteI have not heard of prevescalation before, but it is an interesting concept. Would the intervention be considered secondary prevention, since an individual would be at risk for dependence or is it somewhere between primary and secondary prevention?
New concept. Attribute to Niaura. I think it would be akin to HCV-->liver cancer progression. You'd be engaged in primary prevention of liver cancer in work with newly detected HCV-infected persons. If liver cancer already is present, and you're doing liver transplants, it would be primary prevention of death from liver cancer. Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteIt seems like we can always think in terms of primary prevention, since we want to prevent conditions from progressing to worse conditions/end points. I like the idea of prevescalation, if that is replacing that framework. What about tertiary prevention, then? My impression of tertiary is that it is the prevention of a condition worsening/progressing. Is it within that given condition, as opposed to HCV-->liver cancer?
ReplyDeleteSamantha Bauer:
ReplyDeleteIt seems like we can always think in terms of primary prevention, since we want to prevent conditions from progressing to worse conditions/end points. I like the idea of prevescalation, if that is replacing that framework. What about tertiary prevention, then? My impression of tertiary is that it is the prevention of a condition worsening/progressing. Is it within that given condition, as opposed to HCV-->liver cancer?
Is this the theory of relativity in action? Would it be better if we just specify that we are trying to prevent y given x?
ReplyDeleteJCA replied to SB on 14 Apr 2017, offline:
ReplyDeleteGordon's concepts of 1^, 2^, and 3^ have been critiqued; seek out the Gordon paper and the critique(s), and please post the citations in this thread, and add your own thoughts in a note on universal, selected/selective, and indicated prevention tactics organized into public health strategies, if you would.
Gordon, R.S. (1983) "An operational classification of disease prevention" Public Health Rep, 98(2): 107-109.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1424415/?page=1
I think the prevention trilogy redefined in "An operational classification of disease prevention" is more logical than primary/secondary/tertiary terms. Especially, the selective category, where disease has not occurred but one is of higher risk. From my perspective primary/secondary/tertiary terms are somewhat grey with where disease free stratification by high risk groups belong. I have struggled with prevention distinctions in the past, but Gordon's paradigm seems more straight forward.
ReplyDeleteSamantha Bauer:
ReplyDeleteJCA replied to SB on 14 Apr 2017, offline:
Gordon's concepts of 1^, 2^, and 3^ have been critiqued; seek out the Gordon paper and the critique(s), and please post the citations in this thread, and add your own thoughts in a note on universal, selected/selective, and indicated prevention tactics organized into public health strategies, if you would.
Gordon, R.S. (1983) "An operational classification of disease prevention" Public Health Rep, 98(2): 107-109.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1424415/?page=1
Samantha Bauer:
ReplyDeleteI think the prevention trilogy redefined in "An operational classification of disease prevention" is more logical than primary/secondary/tertiary terms. Especially, the selective category, where disease has not occurred but one is of higher risk. From my perspective primary/secondary/tertiary terms are somewhat grey with where disease free stratification by high risk groups belong. I have struggled with prevention distinctions in the past, but Gordon's paradigm seems more straight forward.