Quaternary prevention: a concept relevant to public health? A bibliometric and descriptive content analysis

According to the World Organization of Family Doctors (WONCA), quaternary prevention (P4) is a recent concept that aims to prevent medical overuse. Thus, this study aimed to measure and map research output on P4 as outline research trends, evaluating its current international status through a bibliometric and descriptive content analysis. We reviewed scientific articles on P4 recorded in PubMed, LILACS, SciELO or CINAHL with the outcomes: publication year, first authors' name and nationality, journals' name, country and ranking, publication language, used methods and main reported subjects. The analysis included 65 articles published in 33 journals of 16 countries between 2003 and 2018 with a peak of publications in 2015. The first authors came from 17 different countries, 23% Brazilian, with Uruguay as the leading nation in scientific production per capita. Q1 or Q2 journals amassed 28% of published papers. Bibliographic research comprised 88% of articles and 38% of all focused on specific examples of medical overuse. P4 represents an ethical and valid approach to prevent iatrogenic events and achieve equal and fair access to health services. Conceptual, geographical, and linguistic elements, as well as WONCA conferences and type of healthcare systems in the authors' country were fundamental factors that affected research output. The available studies are still of limited quality and quantity, with further investigations needed to assess the effective impact of P4 on public health.

CUIDADO CLÍNICO E SOBREMEDICALIZAÇÃO NA ATENÇÃO PRIMÁRIA À SAÚDE

Resumo Este ensaio analisa a sobremedicalização (medicalização desnecessária e indesejável) gerada no cuidado médico aos adoecidos na atenção primária à saúde, discute como ocorre e como evitá-la. Articula na análise três grupos de concepções/saberes: concepções de doença (dinâmicas/ontológicas); concepções de causação (ascendente/multidirecional); eixos conceituais estruturantes do saber médico (anatomopatológico, fisiopatológico, semiológico, epidemiológico). A sobremedicalização deriva dos movimentos cognitivos dos profissionais na elaboração diagnóstica e terapêutica. Ela nasce da associação da concepção ontológica de doença com causação ascendente (fluxo causal que vai dos elementos materiais mais simples a dimensões e níveis mais complexos), em articulação com sobrevalorização do eixo anatomopatológico, geradora de excessivas intervenções diagnósticas e farmacoterapêuticas. Para evitar a sobremedicalização, propomos a associação virtuosa da concepção dinâmica de doença, com causação multidirecional e uso equilibrado dos eixos conceituais das doenças. Isso facilita: escuta qualificada; contextualização dos casos; mais criterioso uso de exames complementares; reconhecimento dos limites diagnósticos biomédicos; superação da razão metonímica (que despreza tudo o que não é saber cientificamente consagrado); amplificação da interpretação para além das 'doenças' e dos tratamentos para além dos fármacos/cirurgias, explorando os saberes dos usuários e profissionais, práticas complementares e a devolução de problemas para o manejo autônomo apoiado.

Differentiating clinical care from disease prevention: a prerequisite for practicing quaternary prevention

This article contends that the distinction between clinical care (illness) and prevention of future disease is essential to the practice of quaternary prevention. The authors argue that the ongoing entanglement of clinical care and prevention transforms healthy into "sick" people through changes in disease classification criteria and/or cut-off points for defining high-risk states. This diverts health care resources away from those in need of care and increases the risk of iatrogenic harm in healthy people. The distinction in focus is based on: (a) management of uncertainty (more flexible when caring for ill persons); (b) guarantee of benefit (required only in prevention); (c) harm tolerance (nil or minimal in prevention). This implies attitudinal differences in the decision-making process: greater skepticism, scientism and resistance towards preventive action. These should be based on high-quality scientific evidence of end-outcomes that displays a net positive harm/benefit ratio.