 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
reduction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reduction |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reduction |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reduction |