home
back
forward
dissonance
dissonance
reduction

DISSONANCE : PREVENTION VERSUS TREATMENT (PRIMARY PREVENTION VERSUS SECONDARY PREVENTION)

Government as well as medicine have, through a long tradition, given priority to Treatment and Care rather than to Prevention. This is clearly reflected in separate funding and usually separate institutional arrangements. In most cases, this makes it almost impossible to arrange formally for close collaboration. (see Dissonance: Integration versus Specialization). Furthermore total funding available for Prevention is minuscule although it can be argued that more successful Prevention would reduce the cost of Treatment (‘Care is Prevention’). Most of the funding for Treatment comes through traditional channels like hospitals and a well established national health budget. Prevention has no such regular sources.

For technical reasons, Treatment, (particularly antiretroviral) is specialized, while Prevention offers a wider range of choice including integration with other HIV/Aids initiatives (see Integration v. Specialization and Under Represented Need groups). The importance of providing psycho-social care (see Increased Life Expectancy) could be an important link between Treatment and Secondary/Tertiary Prevention, but resources are often not available. These issues merge with considerations of Human Rights and the Quality of Life: people have a right to be protected.

The well known differentiation between Primary and Secondary (and Tertiary) Prevention provides various options with Secondary Prevention usually more specialized in clinics, certain language groups, school education, prostitutes, drug users. The effectiveness of Prevention varies enormously with the method, but not enough research data is available to distinguish between ‘hands on’ (direct contact) compared with ‘arms length’ (advertising etc). Secondary Prevention is given very limited resources.

home
back
forward
dissonance
dissonance
reduction

No Dissonance Reduction, but some learning

The rigid budgetary and structural separation between Prevention and Treatment prevents Dissonance Reduction for the time being.

There was agreement that efforts should be made to overcome these barriers and some informal collaboration has taken place. The logical as well as humanitarian case for more investment in Prevention was, in theory, widely accepted. The Directorate V of the European Commission supports the case for more emphasis to be given to Prevention.

Care can easily integrate Prevention. The added value of joining Secondary (and therefore Tertiary) Prevention resources to existing and funded Treatment activities in hospitals (through psycho-social counseling), with ethnic minorities, drug users, prostitutes etc., is considerable.

home
back
forward
dissonance
dissonance
reduction