Talk:Preventive healthcare

Page name

Before anyone brings it up, yes, "preventative" is a word, and it is an alternative form of "preventive". However, it is not the correct word for this area of medical specialization. Carl 21:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

What's your source for 'preventative' not being correct for this 'area' of medical specialization.

I've taken the liberty of rephrasing the preventative/preventive sentence to avoid the suggestion that 'preventative' is 'not in the dictionary'. I have emphasized that 'preventive' is the preferred form.

Obscene soviet breasts

Inappropriate for the younger readers, i do feel, must be removed to meet universal guidelines and regulations.

I agree, because, in a generally broad subject like this, there are many alternatives available.

I don't think it's obscene, as it is intended to be didactic rather than pornographic. However, the current caption does not make sense. "A 1930 Soviet poster propagating breast cancer?" Can someone who reads Russian provide a better translation or explanation? MlleDiderot 14:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed section

I removed the following section because it's far too detailed and off-topic for this article. Perhaps some can be incorporated into Association of Preventive Medicine Residents and American Board of Preventive Medicine Examination. --David Iberri (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that it is inappropriate material here. It was reinserted, but now once again removed.--cjllw | TALK 13:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like description of a person who practices preventive medicine could be useful information on a "Preventive Medicine" page -- I have reinserted this material and hope it can stay. June 14 2006

I've also removed the section; it's not written in the same tone as anything else on Wikipedia, and a q&a session / personal account is impossible to fact-check or ensure a neutral point of view. If it could be rewritten in the third person, generalising rather than specifying, and making larger claims or descriptions of the nature of preventive medicine, it would be a much better addition. Ziggurat 21:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Abortion

Abortion should be in the list of preventative deaths, the numbers are astonishing for the United States of America alone.

No, as it is not a independent sentient living human.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Deaths from abortions are relatively rare in the US. Much more common in other countries where access to safe and sanitary abortion more limited. (see Unintended pregnancy, Unsafe abortion, Maternal death) But a bit more coverage of preventive benefits of contraception and reproductive health care here wouldn't be amiss here. Zodon (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the above editor was referring to the deaths of the fetus.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

is suicide considered a preventable death?

and if it is considered within this category - what are the numbers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlypsychosis (talk • contribs) 05:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't know about preventability, for stats, consider Suicide#Epidemiology, List of causes of death by rate group G.1 Zodon (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

you can't vaccinate against suicide, but early intervention for some psychiatric conditions is considered prevention of suicide - one can argue about whether this is prevention or whether a disorder already exists and 'early intervention' is the appropriate terminology - b - betswiki (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

yes primary vs secondary prevention for psychosis (see my user name for my interest !!), but there is also a well developed mental health promotion field and some good examples of extensive suicide prevention projects Earlypsychosis (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thinking on mental illness prevention has moved on a lot (see e.g. Mental_disorder#Prevention) - we really should have suicide (80%+ of suicides have a mental illness component) and mental illness in here (JCJC777 (talk) 11:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC))

Public health campaigns

This news story says that Salovey has published on the use of positive and negative messages in public health campaigns related to prevention. Positive messages usually (but not always) work better. It might be interesting to see something on this subject in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Criticism Section = Lack of Critical Thinking

This article reads like propaganda. There is no critique of "Preventative Medicine" techniques or assumptions. Do you believe that medical articles on Wikipedia should have some balance in the form of assessing the efficacy of the reported form of medicine through systematic reviews and reporting of popular criticism?Herbxue (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not clear that a criticism section would be a helpful way to handle this. Might be clearer to incorporate limitations of the various approaches into the appropriate sections.

Reports of popular criticism would be of dubious value (apt. to be undue weight, news, etc.). Would need clear high quality citations (WP:MEDMOS). Zodon (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That guideline seems to indicate that there is no requirement for articles to be balanced in terms of point of view. Is it not an endorsement of "preventative medicine" to not include both a description and a critique?Herbxue (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As noted in the lead of MEDMOS, it supplements, rather than supplanting the regular manual of style. I was just pointing out the need for high quality sources, especially when dealing with popular criticism. Too often coverage of popular criticism lends undue weight to or perpetuates popular misconceptions.

Certainly covering the limitations of preventive medicine makes sense. Whether to use a criticism section or another format depends on the material to be covered. Again - my comment was relating to form rather than content. Zodon (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. So, you would not consider commentary on a website like Quackwatch to be an appropriate source for this article?Herbxue (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In general, Quackwatch is considered a reliable source... so long as the statement is primarily about what Quackwatch's opinions are. There are many better sources available. Systematic reviews are often lovely. There are also some good books that deal with its limitations in various ways. I don't think that even its most ardent supporters believes that it is the solution to all the world's ills. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This thread got me thinking, so I started the limitations section. (Needs more work and additional citations.)

On the financial/profit angle - I expect (hope) there are articles on wikipedia already on that topic, but I don't know what they would be called. Any suggestions for appropriate wikilinks? Zodon (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you thinking about Cost-effectiveness analysis, or the idea that we don't choose to prevent some diseases, because BigCorp makes money off of treating them? If the latter, then you will find an example of that notion described and sourced at Breast cancer awareness#Environmental_breast_cancer_movement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

inexcusable prejudice

The following line refers explicitly to gay and bisexual men using condoms inconsistently with sex with men.

"PrEP is a measure taken daily (before, during, and after) possible exposure; for example, by gay or bisexual men who inconsistently use condoms during sex with men who may have HIV infection."

If a bisexual man uses condoms inconsistently might he not also use them inconsistently with women? The way this is phrased suggests that only male partners might have HIV, but this is obviously false. It also oddly suggests that only gay or bisexual men having sex with a man who might have HIV might get infected. Again false. If one's partner may have HIV then one is at risk, this is true for women as well as men. HIV is not a 'gay' disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.83.53 (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What are the origins of primary secondary and tertiary prevention?

The originator(s) of this useful concept is/are not given credit. Does anyone know where the concept originated? A reference would be good. The late Dr Wendy Dawson once told me that her step-father, Dr Don Rittey, was the originator. But I do not know if this is so. Dr Rittey was a one-time Permanent Secretary for Health in Zambia (Late 1960s I think) and was a British-trained public health specialist. He taught social medicine at the University of Zimbabwe (called Rhodesia at the time) prior to his death in the late 1970s.