Raspe H
Institut für Sozialmedizin, Medizinische Universität zu Lübeck.
Z Arztl Fortbild (Jena). 1997 Jan;90(8):741-6.
Clinical prevention is defined as the application of all individual practice contacts of patients and physicians during the screening after risky habits or living conditions for the following specific consultation (i.e., aiming for "free of tobacco") and/or induction of specific interventions (i.e., medical check-up, health examination, immunization). All data available up to now are demonstrating that the theoretically accessible options for clinical prevention are realized merely imperfectly by physicians and/or are hardly accepted by the patients. This may be due to the restricted perception and clarification of three problem areas; they are separately discussed: 1. The clinical prevention is also part of a comprehensive "prevention politic" and needs adequate general conditions. I.e., it is generally unclear, who is supposed to take care of the health promotion and prevention: the government with its public health services, the health insurances, the society of panel physicians? 2. Clinical prevention is more distant to a strict outcome orientation than other medical areas. There is a lack of a firm proof of its individual, epidemiological, cultural, and economical effects - namely the positive and negative ones. 3. (Clinical) prevention is especially exposed to ethical tensions. The protection of the patient's (or the client's) autonomy plays a particular role. If it is possible 1. to reduce the fear of physicians and patients for the political implications of clinical and medical prevention more than in the past, 2. to work out and distribute convincing empirical proofs of the desired (and undesired) effects of prevention, and 3. to discuss the ethical tensions typical of prevention as well as to reduce them in each single case, the program of clinical prevention would have a real chance in Germany. Otherwise it has to be feared that there will only be "Medical Prevention Weeks".
临床预防被定义为在筛查出有危险习惯或生活状况后,患者与医生在后续特定咨询(即旨在“戒烟”)期间的所有个体诊疗接触,和/或进行特定干预(即医学检查、健康体检、免疫接种)。目前所有可得数据都表明,临床预防在理论上可行的方案,医生实施得并不完善,和/或患者也很难接受。这可能是由于对三个问题领域的认知和阐释受限;现将分别讨论如下:1. 临床预防也是全面“预防政策”的一部分,需要适当的总体条件。也就是说,通常不清楚应由谁来负责健康促进和预防工作:是政府及其公共卫生服务机构、健康保险公司还是全科医生协会?2. 与其他医疗领域相比,临床预防更缺乏严格的结果导向。缺乏关于其个体、流行病学、文化和经济影响的确凿证据——即正面和负面的影响。3. (临床)预防特别容易引发伦理冲突。保护患者(或客户)的自主权起着特殊作用。如果能够做到以下几点:1. 比过去更多地减轻医生和患者对临床及医疗预防政治影响的担忧;2. 找出并传播关于预防预期(和非预期)效果的有说服力的实证证据;3. 讨论预防特有的伦理冲突,并在每个具体案例中加以缓解,那么临床预防计划在德国将真正有机会实施。否则,恐怕只会有“医学预防周”。