Poised for Prevention: Advancing Promising Approaches to Primary Prevention of Intimate Partner Violence

Includes a discussion of primary prevention of partner violence, promising approaches to environmental/norms change, an examination of primary prevention within immigrant communities, and recommended actions and immediate next steps

Infarct tissue characterization in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients for primary versus secondary prevention following myocardial infarction: a study with contrast-enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging

Knowledge about potential differences in infarct tissue characteristics between patients with prior life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia versus patients receiving prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) might help to improve the current risk stratification in myocardial infarction (MI) patients who are considered for ICD implantation. In a consecutive series of (ICD) recipients for primary and secondary prevention following MI, we used contrast-enhanced (CE) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging to evaluate differences in infarct tissue characteristics. Cine-CMR measurements included left ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes (EDV, ESV), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), wall motion score index (WMSI), and mass. CE-CMR images were analyzed for core, peri, and total infarct size, infarct localization (according to coronary artery territory), and transmural extent. In this study, 95 ICD recipients were included. In the primary prevention group (n = 66), LVEF was lower (23 ± 9 % vs. 31 ± 14 %; P < 0.01), ESV and WMSI were higher (223 ± 75 ml vs. 184 ± 97 ml, P = 0.04, and 1.89 ± 0.52 vs. 1.47 ± 0.68; P < 0.01), and anterior infarct localization was more frequent (P = 0.02) than in the secondary prevention group (n = 29). There were no differences in infarct tissue characteristics between patients treated for primary versus secondary prevention (P > 0.6 for all). During 21 ± 9 months of follow-up, 3 (5 %) patients in the primary prevention group and 9 (31 %) in the secondary prevention group experienced appropriate ICD therapy for treatment of ventricular arrhythmia (P < 0.01). There was no difference in infarct tissue characteristics between recipients of ICD for primary versus secondary prevention, while the secondary prevention group showed a higher frequency of applied ICD therapy for ventricular arrhythmia.\u

Designing Primary Prevention for People Living with HIV

Today, there are new reasons for a sharper focus on prevention for people living with HIV. Growing numbers of people with the disease are living more healthy, sexual lives. Recent evidence suggests that risk taking among both HIV-positive and negative people is increasing. After nearly two decades of life in the shadow of AIDS, communities are growing weary of traditional prevention messages and many people are openly grappling with difficult questions of intimacy and sex. Increasingly, people living with HIV also face multiple complex economic and substance abuse challenges that complicate prevention efforts.There is an urgent need -- and sufficient expertise -- to move forward with prevention campaigns focused on helping people living with HIV and AIDS avoid passing their infection along to others. Numerous innovative interventions for people with HIV show promise, including:a social marketing campaign for gay men and a five-session group intervention for women living with HIV in Massachusetts,a chat line for positives and a group session program for Latinas/Latinos in Los Angeles,Internet chat room interventions in Atlanta,a group session for gay Asian American-Pacific Islander Americans living with HIV in San Francisco, andPrevention Case Management programs newly funded by the Centers for Disease Control

Statins for primary and secondary prevention in the oldest old : an overview of the existing evidence

Hypercholesterolemia, although a modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease, is still one of the leading causes of death among older people in western countries. The use of statins among cholesterol reducing agents in both primary and secondary prevention has not been extensively studied in older patients in contrast to middle-aged patients. Despite a growing body of evidence in secondary prevention, statins are still under utilized in older patients with established vascular disease. On the other hand, the benefits of statins in primary prevention are not so clear. Therefore, the systematic use of statins in older patients with hypercholesterolemia needs to be further investigated

Comparing Strategies to Prevent Stroke and Ischemic Heart Disease in the Tunisian Population: Markov Modeling Approach Using a Comprehensive Sensitivity Analysis Algorithm.

Background. Mathematical models offer the potential to analyze and compare the effectiveness of very different interventions to prevent future cardiovascular disease. We developed a comprehensive Markov model to assess the impact of three interventions to reduce ischemic heart diseases (IHD) and stroke deaths: (i) improved medical treatments in acute phase, (ii) secondary prevention by increasing the uptake of statins, (iii) primary prevention using health promotion to reduce dietary salt consumption. Methods. We developed and validated a Markov model for the Tunisian population aged 35–94 years old over a 20-year time horizon. We compared the impact of specific treatments for stroke, lifestyle, and primary prevention on both IHD and stroke deaths. We then undertook extensive sensitivity analyses using both a probabilistic multivariate approach and simple linear regression (metamodeling). Results. The model forecast a dramatic mortality rise, with 111,134 IHD and stroke deaths (95% CI 106567 to 115048) predicted in 2025 in Tunisia. The salt reduction offered the potentially most powerful preventive intervention that might reduce IHD and stroke deaths by 27% (−30240 [−30580 to −29900]) compared with 1% for medical strategies and 3% for secondary prevention. The metamodeling highlighted that the initial development of a minor stroke substantially increased the subsequent probability of a fatal stroke or IHD death. Conclusions. The primary prevention of cardiovascular disease via a reduction in dietary salt consumption appeared much more effective than secondary or tertiary prevention approaches. Our simple but comprehensive model offers a potentially attractive methodological approach that might now be extended and replicated in other contexts and populations

Cardiovascular Disease: Analyzing Primary and Secondary Prevention Strategies

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the single most common cause of death around the world, with an increasing number of people living with coronary heart disease (CHD) (Anderson et al., 2016). Smoking and tobacco use are major risk factors for CVD and are the leading preventable causes of death globally. The chance of developing CVD is reversible and the elimination of tobacco use after a heart attack can reduce an individual\u27s risk of CVD mortality by 36% over two years (Rigotti & Clari, 2013). Smoking cessation is the central element of primary and secondary prevention strategies. Primary interventions can include aspirin and statin therapy, while secondary preventions include, but are not limited to, exercise-based rehabilitation and psychosocial interventions. The purpose of this project is to determine whether primary or secondary interventions are more effective in reducing the risk of developing CVD. To answer the clinical question, a thorough review of the literature was organized in the databases, Cochrane Library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, CINAHL, and PubMed Clinical Queries. The search yielded relevant sources of evidence which met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Evidence included systematic reviews and randomized control trials. The findings regarding the best interventions to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease will be presented. These findings will assist healthcare providers in implementing the best quality of care to their patients

Children affected by domestic and family violence: a review of domestic and family violence prevention, early intervention and response services

This report sets out the findings of research into domestic and family violence prevention, early intervention and response for children aged 0–8 years in New South Wales. Executive summary The report contributes to the development of the knowledge base on DFV prevention, early intervention and response strategies and the needs of children, and supports the implementation of aspects of the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Their Children and the NSW Government’s It Stops Here: Standing Together to end Domestic and Family Violence in NSW strategy. The research had two areas of focus: synthesising the literature on the impacts of DFV on children, and on the evidence for primary prevention and early intervention strategies for children aged 0–8 years; and identifying best practice approaches for primary prevention, early intervention and response for children aged 0–8, and identifying the extent to which these needs are met within existing DVF primary prevention, early intervention, and response approaches in Australia

Improving chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: results of the BETTER pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundPrimary care provides most of the evidence-based chronic disease prevention and screening services offered by the healthcare system. However, there remains a gap between recommended preventive services and actual practice. This trial (the BETTER Trial) aimed to improve preventive care of heart disease, diabetes, colorectal, breast and cervical cancers, and relevant lifestyle factors through a practice facilitation intervention set in primary care.MethodsPragmatic two-way factorial cluster RCT with Primary Care Physicians' practices as the unit of allocation and individual patients as the unit of analysis. The setting was urban Primary Care Team practices in two Canadian provinces. Eight Primary Care Team practices were randomly assigned to receive the practice-level intervention or wait-list control; 4 physicians in each team (32 physicians) were randomly assigned to receive the patient-level intervention or wait-list control. Patients randomly selected from physicians' rosters were stratified into two groups: 1) general and 2) moderate mental illness. The interventions involved a multifaceted, evidence-based, tailored practice-level intervention with a Practice Facilitator, and a patient-level intervention involving a one-hour visit with a Prevention Practitioner where patients received a tailored 'prevention prescription'. The primary outcome was a composite Summary Quality Index of 28 evidence-based chronic disease prevention and screening actions with pre-defined targets, expressed as the ratio of eligible actions at baseline that were met at follow-up. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted.Results789 of 1,260 (63%) eligible patients participated. On average, patients were eligible for 8.96 (SD 3.2) actions at baseline. In the adjusted analysis, control patients met 23.1% (95% CI: 19.2% to 27.1%) of target actions, compared to 28.5% (95% CI: 20.9% to 36.0%) receiving the practice-level intervention, 55.6% (95% CI: 49.0% to 62.1%) receiving the patient-level intervention, and 58.9% (95% CI: 54.7% to 63.1%) receiving both practice- and patient-level interventions (patient-level intervention versus control, P &lt; 0.001). The benefit of the patient-level intervention was seen in both strata. The extra cost of the intervention was $26.43CAN (95$16 to $44) per additional action met.ConclusionsA Prevention Practitioner can improve the implementation of clinically important prevention and screening for chronic diseases in a cost-effective manner

Primary prevention from the epidemiology perspective: three examples from the practice

Background: Primary prevention programmes are of increasing importance to reduce the impact of chronic diseases on the individual, institutional and societal level. However, most initiatives that develop and implement primary prevention programmes are not evaluated with scientific rigor. On the basis of three different projects we discuss necessary steps on the road to evidence-based primary prevention. Discussion: We first discuss how to identify suitable target groups exploiting sophisticated statistical methods. This is illustrated using data from a health survey conducted in a federal state of Germany. A literature review is the more typical approach to identify target groups that is demonstrated using a European project on the prevention of childhood obesity. In the next step, modifiable risk factors and realistic targets of the intervention have to be specified. These determine the outcome measures that in turn are used for effect evaluation. Both, the target groups and the outcome measures, lay the ground for the study design and the definition of comparison groups as can be seen in our European project. This project also illustrates the development and implementation of a prevention programme. These may require active involvement of participants which can be achieved by participatory approaches taking into account the socio-cultural and living environment. Evaluation is of utmost importance for any intervention to assess structure, process and outcome according to rigid scientific criteria. Different approaches used for this are discussed and illustrated by a methodological project developed within a health promotion programme in a deprived area. Eventually the challenge of transferring an evidence-based intervention into practice and to achieve its sustainability is addressed. Summary: This article describes a general roadmap to primary prevention comprising (1) the identification of target groups and settings, (2) the identification of modifiable risk factors and endpoints, (3) the development and implementation of an intervention programme, (4) the evaluation of structure, process and outcome and (5) the transfer of an evidence-based intervention into practice