Advertisement

Prevention Science

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 818–822 | Cite as

Can Prevention Classification be Improved by Considering the Function of Prevention?

  • David R. FoxcroftEmail author
Article

Abstract

Universal, selective and indicated forms of prevention have been adopted as improvements on previous notions of primary and secondary prevention. However, some conceptual confusion remains concerning the placing of environmental, community-based or mass media preventive interventions within this typology. It is suggested that a new dimension of functional types of prevention, namely environmental, developmental and informational prevention should be specified alongside the forms of prevention in a taxonomy matrix. The main advantage of this new taxonomy is that a matrix combining the form and function dimensions of prevention can be used to identify and map out prevention strategies, to consider where research evidence is present and where more is needed, and to evaluate the relative effectiveness of different categories and components of prevention for specific health and social issues. Such evaluations would provide empirical evidence as to whether the different categories of prevention are related to outcomes or processes of prevention in ways that suggest the value of the taxonomy for understanding and increasing the impact of prevention science. This new prevention taxonomy has been useful for conceptualising and planning prevention activities in a case study involving the Swedish National Institute for Public Health. Future work should assess (1) the robustness of this new taxonomy and (2) the theoretical and empirical basis for profiling prevention investments across the various forms and functions of prevention.

Keywords

Prevention Classification Taxonomy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to Thomas Jacobsson, Public Health Planning Officer at the Swedish National Institute for Public Health, for providing the case study described in this article, and for commenting on an early draft.

References

  1. Allebeck, P. (2008). The prevention paradox or the inequality paradox. European Journal of Public Health, 18, 215. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckn048.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Burkhart, G. (2011). Environmental drug prevention in the EU. Why is it so unpopular? Adicciones, 23, 87–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Commission on Chronic Illness. (1957). Chronic illness in the United States (Vol. 1). Cambridge, Mass: Published for the Commonwealth Fund by Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gordon, R. S. (1983). An operational classification of disease prevention. Public Health Reports, 98, 107–109.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Foxcroft, D. R. (2007). The need for values: science and art in alcohol harm reduction. Addiction, 102, 1350–1351. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01933.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Frolich, K. L., & Potvin, L. (2008). The inequality paradox: the population approach and vulnerable populations. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 216–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Holder, H. (1999). Alcohol and the community: a systems approach to prevention. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Institute of Medicine. (1994). Reducing the risks for mental disorders: frontiers for preventive intervention research. In P. J. Mrazek & R. J. Haggerty (Eds.), Committee on Prevention of Mental Disorders, Division of Biobehavioral Sciences and Mental Disorders. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  9. Committee on the Prevention of Mental Disorders and Substance Abuse Among Children, Youth and Young Adults: Research Advances and Promising Interventions, National Research Council, & Institute of Medicine. (2009). Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities. Washington: National Academies.Google Scholar
  10. Rose, G. (1981). Strategy of prevention: lessons from cardiovascular disease. British Medical Journal, 282, 1847–51.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Marmot M., Atkinson T., Bell J., Black C., Broadfoot P., Cumberlege J., Mulgan G. (2010) Fair society, healthy lives. Strategic review of health inequalities in England post 2010. London, England: The Marmot Review [available from www.ucl.ac.uk/marmotreview; Accessed 14 Jan 2013]

Copyright information

© Society for Prevention Research 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Health and Life SciencesOxford Brookes UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations