Priorities among effective clinical preventive services - Results of a systematic review and analysis

被引:431
作者
Maciosek, Michael V.
Coffield, Ashley B.
Edwards, Nichol M.
Flottemesch, Thomas J.
Goodman, Michael J.
Solberg, Leif I.
机构
[1] Partnership Prevent, Washington, DC 20036 USA
[2] HealthPartners Res Fdn, Minneapolis, MN USA
基金
美国医疗保健研究与质量局;
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.amepre.2006.03.012
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background: Decision makers at multiple levels need information about which clinical preventive services matter the most so that they can prioritize their actions. This study was designed to produce comparable estimates of relative health impact and cost effectiveness for services considered effective by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Methods: The National Commission on Prevention Priorities (NCPP) guided this update to a 2001 ranking of clinical preventive services. The NCPP used new preventive service recommendations up to December 2004, improved methods, and more complete and recent data and evidence. Each service received 1 to 5 points on each of two measures-clinically preventable burden and cost effectiveness-for a total score ranging from 2 to 10. Priorities for improving delivery rates were established by comparing the ranking with what is known of current delivery rates nationally. Results: The three highest-ranking services each with a total score of 10 are discussing aspirin use with high-risk adults, immunizing children, and tobacco-use screening and brief intervention. High-ranking services (scores of 6 and above) with data indicating low current utilization rates (around 50% or lower) include: tobacco-use screening and brief intervention, screening adults aged 50 and older for colorectal cancer, immunizing adults aged 65 and older against pneumococcal disease, and screening young women for Chlamydia. Conclusion: This study identifies the most valuable clinical preventive services that can be offered in medical practice and should help decision-makers select which services to emphasize.
引用
收藏
页码:52 / 61
页数:10
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], STAT ABSTR US 2003
[2]  
[Anonymous], NAT HLTH INT SURV 20
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2005, GUIDE COMMUNITY PREV
[4]  
*CDCP, 2005, NAT HLTH INT SURV EA
[5]   Priorities among recommended clinical preventive services [J].
Coffield, AB ;
Maciosek, MV ;
McGinnis, JM ;
Harris, JR ;
Caldwell, MB ;
Teutsch, SM ;
Atkins, D ;
Richland, JH ;
Haddix, A .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2001, 21 (01) :1-9
[6]  
Diabet Prevention Program Res Grp, 2003, DIABETES CARE, V26, P2518, DOI 10.2337/diacare.26.9.2518
[7]   Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of strategies for managing people at high risk for diabetes [J].
Eddy, DM ;
Schlessinger, L ;
Kahn, R .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2005, 143 (04) :251-264
[8]   Does the chronic care model serve also as a template for improving prevention? [J].
Glasgow, RE ;
Orleans, CT ;
Wagner, EH ;
Curry, SJ ;
Solberg, LI .
MILBANK QUARTERLY, 2001, 79 (04) :579-+
[9]  
Gold MR, 1996, COST EFFECTIVENESS H
[10]   Screening adults for type 2 diabetes: A review of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force [J].
Harris, R ;
Donahue, K ;
Rathore, SS ;
Frame, P ;
Woolf, SH ;
Lohr, KN .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2003, 138 (03) :215-229