Literature DB >> 16477910

[The periodic health examination: a comparison of United States and Canadian recommendations].

Cléo Mavriplis1, Guylène Thériault.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare recommendations of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care with those of the United States Preventive Services Task Force for periodic health examinations (PHEs), following the usual sequence of a medical interview. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Each task force reviewed the literature exhaustively and created a system of classification that indicated the quality of the evidence. MAIN MESSAGE: Two tables sum up the conclusions of the task forces with respect to preventive measures to be included in PHEs: one for adults generally and one for women specifically. Three other tables show measures for which recommendations are different or conflicting, as well as measures that might be excluded. Several forms and other materials for PHEs based on these comparisons can be found at http://medecinefamiliale.com/umf/emc/emp_guide.htm. Many recommendations are similar; in spite of this, many physicians fail to include them in PHEs. Certain factors could explain the differences between the recommendations, including the challenge of arriving at a standard scientific process for reviewing data, the fact that formulating recommendations is a social as well as a scientific process, and the fact that the CTFPHC is seriously underfunded.
CONCLUSION: A scientific review of the literature, even when performed by experts using strict criteria, is not easy to standardize. The differences that our comparison revealed, some of which are substantial, highlight the need to further examine how recommendations are formulated. More research in this field would be helpful.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16477910      PMCID: PMC1479730     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Fam Physician        ISSN: 0008-350X            Impact factor:   3.275


  15 in total

1.  The art and science of incorporating cost effectiveness into evidence-based recommendations for clinical preventive services.

Authors:  S Saha; T J Hoerger; M P Pignone; S M Teutsch; M Helfand; J S Mandelblatt
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 5.043

2.  Introducing the third US Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  A O Berg; J D Allan
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 5.043

3.  Comparison of the European and USA practice guidelines for Osteoporosis.

Authors:  J A Kanis; D Torgerson; C Cooper
Journal:  Trends Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2000 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 12.015

4.  Is the methodological quality of guidelines declining in the US? Comparison of the quality of US Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) guidelines with those published subsequently.

Authors:  R Hasenfeld; P G Shekelle
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2003-12

5.  Ethnic specific recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: a first exploratory comparison between guidelines from the USA, Canada, the UK, and the Netherlands.

Authors:  D R Manna; M A Bruijnzeels; H G A Mokkink; M Berg
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2003-10

6.  Screening and clinical management of prostate cancer. A cross-national comparison.

Authors:  S M Peters; A J Jovell; A García-Altes; M Serra-Prat
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.188

7.  Inside guidelines: comparative analysis of recommendations and evidence in diabetes guidelines from 13 countries.

Authors:  Jako S Burgers; Julia V Bailey; Niek S Klazinga; Akke K Van Der Bij; Richard Grol; Gene Feder
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 19.112

8.  Development and validation of the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument to facilitate selection of women for bone densitometry.

Authors:  S M Cadarette; S B Jaglal; N Kreiger; W J McIsaac; G A Darlington; J V Tu
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-05-02       Impact factor: 8.262

9.  Comparative trial of a short workshop designed to enhance appropriate use of screening tests by family physicians.

Authors:  Marie-Dominique Beaulieu; Michèle Rivard; Eveline Hudon; Claude Beaudoin; Danielle Saucier; Martine Remondin
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2002-11-26       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 10.  Breast cancer screening controversies.

Authors:  Beverly B Green; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Pract       Date:  2003 May-Jun
View more
  3 in total

1. 

Authors:  Christina Korownyk; James McCormack; Michael R Kolber; Scott Garrison; G Michael Allan
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 3.275

2.  Competing demands and opportunities in primary care.

Authors:  Christina Korownyk; James McCormack; Michael R Kolber; Scott Garrison; G Michael Allan
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 3.  Evidence for Health II: Overcoming barriers to using evidence in policy and practice.

Authors:  Anne Andermann; Tikki Pang; John N Newton; Adrian Davis; Ulysses Panisset
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2016-03-14
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.