IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v43y1996i7p1073-1081.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Physician preventive care philosophy and the five year durability of a preventive services office system

Author

Listed:
  • Rebelsky, Michelle S.
  • Sox, Carol Hill
  • Dietrich, Allen J.
  • Schwab, Brenda R.
  • Labaree, Christine E.
  • Brown-Mckinney, Nancy

Abstract

A group of 30 community physicians who practiced in northeastern United States and who participated in the Cancer Prevention in Community Practice project in 1988 were interviewed five years later. The aim of the interviews was to assess the long-term impact of the preventive services office system which had been introduced by the project. The qualitative analysis of interviews revealed three distinct physician philosophies about the provision of preventive services: - - a Request Only focus, responding to specific patient inquiries about prevention but taking no initiative to recommend indicated services; - - a Health Maintenance Visit focus, providing indicated services only during visits specifically scheduled for preventive care; and - - an Opportunistic Prevention focus, providing indicated preventive services at every chance. Physicians demonstrated these philosophies in their overall view of disease prevention, perceived obstacles to delivery of preventive care, as well as in their continued use of flow sheets and their impression of the value of the Cancer Prevention in Community Practice project. The long-term impact of the office system was most apparent in the Opportunistic Prevention group. We conclude that the durability of a preventive services office system is influenced by a physician's preventive care philosophy.

Suggested Citation

  • Rebelsky, Michelle S. & Sox, Carol Hill & Dietrich, Allen J. & Schwab, Brenda R. & Labaree, Christine E. & Brown-Mckinney, Nancy, 1996. "Physician preventive care philosophy and the five year durability of a preventive services office system," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1073-1081, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:43:y:1996:i:7:p:1073-1081
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(96)00025-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:43:y:1996:i:7:p:1073-1081. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.