Spanish
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2006-Jul

Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: results of a systematic review and analysis.

Solo los usuarios registrados pueden traducir artículos
Iniciar sesión Registrarse
El enlace se guarda en el portapapeles.
Michael V Maciosek
Ashley B Coffield
Nichol M Edwards
Thomas J Flottemesch
Michael J Goodman
Leif I Solberg

Palabras clave

Abstracto

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Únete a nuestra
página de facebook

La base de datos de hierbas medicinales más completa respaldada por la ciencia

  • Funciona en 55 idiomas
  • Curas a base de hierbas respaldadas por la ciencia
  • Reconocimiento de hierbas por imagen
  • Mapa GPS interactivo: etiquete hierbas en la ubicación (próximamente)
  • Leer publicaciones científicas relacionadas con su búsqueda
  • Buscar hierbas medicinales por sus efectos.
  • Organice sus intereses y manténgase al día con las noticias de investigación, ensayos clínicos y patentes.

Escriba un síntoma o una enfermedad y lea acerca de las hierbas que podrían ayudar, escriba una hierba y vea las enfermedades y los síntomas contra los que se usa.
* Toda la información se basa en investigaciones científicas publicadas.

Google Play badgeApp Store badge