BMJ 1996;312:324-325 (10 February)

Editorials

Health promotion in primary care

Even less coherent than before

In his continuing drive to appease disillusioned and overworked general practitioners, Britain's secretary of state for health has made major concessions over the data on health promotion that general practitioners are required to record.1 The more than 120 items of data that were previously required have now been reduced to eight. The move will please those general practitioners who have objected to the "ritualistic collection of risk factors when the public health benefits are marginal,"2 but the reductions seem to have been driven more by the pressure to reduce paperwork than by a desire for effective disease prevention. In the absence of either a strategic or an evidence based approach to health promotion in primary care, many important items have been lost while others have been inappropriately retained.

Under the new scheme, general practitioners are being asked to record the number of patients in their . . . [Full text of this article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Health promotion in primary care
Hugh Bethell
BMJ 1996 312: 1304. [Extract] [Full Text]

Scheme has been a disaster
Judy A Gilley
BMJ 1996 312: 1304. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Florin, D. (1996). Barriers to evidence based policy. BMJ 313: 894-895 [Full text]  
  • Bethell, H. (1996). Health promotion in primary care. BMJ 312: 1304a-1304 [Full text]  
  • Gilley, J. A (1996). Scheme has been a disaster. BMJ 312: 1304b-1304 [Full text]  
Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ