Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Med Life with Dr. Horton
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • Classified ads
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Activate online account
    • Look up login
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Members Corner
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
    • Activate subscription
    • Look up login
    • Manage account
    • Manage IPs
    • View Reports
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JPN

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • My Cart
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JPN
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • My Cart
  • Log in
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Med Life with Dr. Horton
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • Classified ads
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Activate online account
    • Look up login
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Members Corner
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
    • Activate subscription
    • Look up login
    • Manage account
    • Manage IPs
    • View Reports
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Preventive care: so many recommendations, so little time

Nicholas Pimlott
CMAJ November 22, 2005 173 (11) 1345-1346; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.050494
Nicholas Pimlott
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

There are strong pressures to provide preventive care in the family physician's office, and the recent recommendation statement from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for depression in primary care provides yet another set of recommendations to be added to the others.1 Expert panels, disease-specific interest groups and the media all urge prevention as a way to improve health and prolong life. Both Canadian national commissions on health care2,3 placed prevention near the centre of their recommendations to make national health insurance sustainable. It should not astonish that the public responds in our offices by asking to be screened and tested and needing counseling and explanation.

Yet the number of recommended prevention strategies grows each passing year, making it increasingly difficult for family physicians to find the time to implement them. This growth in recommendations occurs when higher workloads due to family physician shortages are driving most practitioners to focus on illness and episodic care.

Some recommendations are of dubious quality. Cancer societies and other disease-specific societies at times promote preventive screening measures for which the evidence is insufficient or even negative. The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care gives mass screening of healthy men 50 years and older for prostate cancer a grade D recommendation (i.e., there is fair evidence against this practice).4 Similarly, the Task Force recommends against teaching women between the ages of 40 and 60 breast self-examination (again a grade D manoeuvre).5Yet the Canadian Cancer Society encourages men to undergo prostate cancer screening6 and women to perform breast self-examination.7 One of the practical consequences of such discrepancies is that family physicians may spend a significant amount of time attempting to explain them to their patients, or, alternatively, to save time, simply doing what patients demand without reaching informed consent about the potential negative consequences of performing such tests.

The popular media, in its hunger for health-related information, is particularly complicit in fuelling the public demand for screening measures that may not have been proven effective. Fed by disease-specific groups — many of which are also heavily funded by health-related industries — newspapers, Web sites and radio and television programs often reflect their point of view. Celebrities become advocates for disease prevention. After her husband died from colon cancer, US journalist Katie Couric helped establish the National Colorectal Cancer Research Alliance, which recommends colonoscopy as the best screening test for colorectal cancer for all patients age 50 and older8 — even though the Canadian Task Force recommends screening colonoscopy only for high-risk adults with hereditary nonpolypoid colon cancer,4 and the United States Preventive Health Services Task Force states that there is no direct evidence to support colonoscopy screening for people at average risk. Both organizations recommend screening people 50 years and older who are at average risk with fecal occult blood testing (grade A recommendation).9 There is no doubt that Couric's public colonoscopy broadcast on her television show Today will have a far more powerful influence on the US and Canadian public than the recommendations of either task force or those of their physicians.

Against the high tide of recommendations and eager or confused patients, family physicians struggle to keep up with those patients who have acute and chronic medical problems. These pressures are exacerbated by an increasing number of elderly patients, a decreasing number of family physicians, conflicting evidence about the effectiveness of preventive manoeuvres and a lack of public policy as to the priorities in preventive care.

Prevention takes time. Yarnall and colleagues determined that to fully satisfy the grade A and B US Task Force recommendations, it would take a primary care physician 1773 hours annually, or about 7.4 hours per working day, in a typical practice of 2500 patients.10 Providing just the grade A manoeuvres would require 2 hours per day. It is not surprising that physicians focus on grade A manoeuvres. Like most physicians, I focus on grade A manoeuvres but spend a significant amount of time each day on those graded C and D — especially screening for prostate cancer, a grade D recommendation of the Canadian Task Force.

We need to establish priorities. Although “A” takes clear precedence over “B,” not all grade A manoeuvres are of equal priority. For example, screening for and treating hypertension in patients over age 60, in whom the number needed to treat is about 18 to prevent one coronary event over 5 years,11is likely of greater priority than screening patients 40 years and older for colorectal cancer with fecal occult blood testing, where the number needed to screen for 10 years is about 1200 to prevent one death.12

We also need to involve the public. We must have broader policy and public discussion about priorities in prevention and the most effective means to deliver them. The public also needs to be made aware of the harm involved in at least some of the recommendations proposed by disease-specific societies and the media. We should discuss the costs of prevention and of adopting strategies that are of limited or uncertain efficacy. Preventive care needs to be “triaged” from lowest to highest priority. For example, as the incidence of obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus increases, with enormous health implications for both individuals and society, should preventing these diseases not be a higher priority than screening older men at average risk for prostate cancer?

Last, given the sea of recommendations and the lack of time for implementation, we ought to question whether opportunistic disease prevention — applying preventive manoeuvres when the patient has come for another reason — can still be recommended. Even the ethics of opportunistic disease prevention have been questioned.13 My colleagues Amy Freedman and Gary Naglie and I determined that elderly patients were twice as likely to receive grade A and B preventive manoeuvres from their family physicians if they presented for an annual health check-up than for a specific health care problem.14

Delivering preventive care and promoting health are important parts of a family physician's work that physicians strongly embrace. Never has it been more challenging for them to do so. The establishment of clear, publicly supported priorities for preventive care, the development and dissemination of age- and gender-specific reminder tools, and more “active” methods to educate physicians and the public are some of the ways in which this can be done.

Footnotes

  • Acknowledgements: I thank Dr. Stephen Holzapfel, Dr. Jim Ruderman and Dr. Kathryn Deuchars for critically reading this manuscript..

    Competing interests: None declared.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    MacMillan HL, Patterson CJ, Wathen CN, et al. Screening for depression in primary care: recommendation statement from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. CMAJ 2005;172(1):33-5.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada. Building on values. The Future of health care in Canada — final report. 2002 Nov 28. pp 115-35. Available: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/pdf/romanow/pdfs/HCC_Final_Report.pdf (accessed 2005 Oct 25).
  3. 3.↵
    Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Final Report on the state of the health care system in Canada. The Health of Canadians — The Federal Role. Vol. 6: Recommendations for reform. October 2002. Available: www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/soci-e/rep-e/repoct02vol6-e.htm (accessed 2005 Oct 25).
  4. 4.↵
    Feightner JW. Screening for prostate cancer. In: Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. Canadian Guide to Clinical Preventive Health Care. Ottawa: Health Canada, 1994; 812-23.
  5. 5.↵
    Baxter N, and the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Preventive health care, 2001 update: Should women be routinely taught breast self-examination to screen for breast cancer? CMAJ 2001;164:1837-46.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    Canadian Cancer Society. Prostate health: What men can do. 2005. Available: www.cancer.ca/vgn/images/portal/cit_86751114/39/11/511087400cw_library_prostatehealth_en.pdf (accessed 2005 Oct 25).
  7. 7.↵
    Canadian Cancer Society. Breast self-examination: What you can do. 2005. Available: www.cancer.ca/vgn/images/portal/cit_86751114/39/41/510656710cw__library_breastselfexam_en.pdf (accessed 2005 Oct 25).
  8. 8.↵
    Get tested: colonoscopy. Entertainment Industry Foundation. National Colorectal Cancer Research Alliance Available: www.eifoundation.org/national/nccra/get_tested/colonoscopy.html (accessed 2005 Oct 24).
  9. 9.↵
    U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: Summary of recommendations. July 2002. Available: www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspscolo.htm (accessed 2005 Oct 24).
  10. 10.↵
    Yarnall KS, Pollak KI, Ostbye T, et al. Primary care: is there enough time for prevention? Am J Public Health 2003;93:635-41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Table of NNTs. Bandolier 1995;17:7. Available: www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band50/b50-8.html (accessed 2005 Oct 25).
  12. 12.↵
    Towler B, Irwig L, Glasziou P, et al. A systematic review of the effects of screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, hemoccult. BMJ 1998;317:559-65.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    Getz L, Sigurdsson J, Hetlevik I. Is opportunistic disease prevention in the consultation ethically justifiable? BMJ 2003;327:498-500.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    Freedman A, Pimlott N, Naglie G. Preventive care for the elderly. Do family physicians comply with recommendations of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care? Can Fam Physician 2000;46:350-7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 173 (11)
CMAJ
Vol. 173, Issue 11
22 Nov 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Preventive care: so many recommendations, so little time
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
Citation Tools
Preventive care: so many recommendations, so little time
Nicholas Pimlott
CMAJ Nov 2005, 173 (11) 1345-1346; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.050494

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Preventive care: so many recommendations, so little time
Nicholas Pimlott
CMAJ Nov 2005, 173 (11) 1345-1346; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.050494
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights of this issue • Dans ce numéro
  • Scopus
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Scopus (4)
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Addiction and Mental Health Strategic Clinical Network
  • Kidney Health Strategic Clinical Network
  • Bone and Joint Health Strategic Clinical Network
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Medical careers

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Alerts
  • RSS

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • CMA Members
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact

Copyright 2019, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire