Display options
Cite
Novick LF, Cibula DA, Sutphen SM, et al. Measuring orientation to population-based prevention. Am J Prev Med. 2003;24(4):95-101doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(03)00026-6.
Novick, L. F., Cibula, D. A., Sutphen, S. M., Rixey, S., Epling, J. W., & Morrow, C. B. (2003). Measuring orientation to population-based prevention. American journal of preventive medicine, 24(4), 95-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-3797(03)00026-6
Novick, Lloyd F, et al. "Measuring orientation to population-based prevention." American journal of preventive medicine vol. 24,4 (2003): 95-101. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-3797(03)00026-6
Novick LF, Cibula DA, Sutphen SM, Rixey S, Epling JW, Morrow CB. Measuring orientation to population-based prevention. Am J Prev Med. 2003 May;24(4):95-101. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(03)00026-6. PMID: 12744986.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Am J Prev Med. 2003 May;24(4):95-101. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(03)00026-6.

Measuring orientation to population-based prevention.

American journal of preventive medicine

Lloyd F Novick, Donald A Cibula, Sally M Sutphen, Sallie Rixey, John W Epling, Cynthia B Morrow

Affiliations

  1. SUNY-Upstate Medical University, Preventive Medicine Program, Department of Medicine, Syracuse, New York 13210, USA. [email protected]

PMID: 12744986 DOI: 10.1016/s0749-3797(03)00026-6

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Assessing orientation to population-based preventive alternatives is useful in the evaluation of preventive medicine curricula.

METHODS: An instrument was developed using hypothetical situations describing a health issue that could be encountered by a primary care physician. Options to be selected were in three categories: (1) treatment, (2) clinical prevention, or (3) population-based prevention. Respondents allocated 900 points among alternatives for nine situations (100 points per situation). Pilot testing of the instrument was implemented, comparing the responses of public health physicians with two groups (Syracuse and Baltimore) of family medicine physicians.

RESULTS: For the overall instrument, the scores on the population scale and population-treatment differential showed statistically significant differences between the public health physicians and both groups of family medicine physicians (p<0.01). For medical students taught the Case-Based Series in Population-Oriented Prevention (C-POP), there was an overall increase in the population scale (p<0.0001) and the population-treatment differential (p<0.0004).

CONCLUSIONS: The development of a scenario-based tool to assess changes in population-based prevention orientation shows preliminary promise for future evaluation efforts involving preventive medicine curricula.

MeSH terms

Publication Types