ArticleBMC health services research2022
Priorities among effective clinical preventive services in British Columbia, Canada.
Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effectiveness of Digital Interventions to Increase Preventive Care Uptake in Older Adults: Systematic Review.JMIR aging · 2026Pooled it
- Differences in Preventive Care Uptake in Attached and Unattached Rural-Living Residents.Health promotion practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the long-standing experience of rating the evidence for clinical preventive services, the delivery of effective clinical preventive services in Canada and elsewhere is less than optimal. We outline an approach used in British Columbia to assist in determining which effective clinical preventive services are worth doing.
methodsWe calculated the clinically preventable burden and cost-effectiveness for 28 clinical preventive services that received a 'strong or conditional (weak) recommendation for' by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care or an 'A' or 'B' rating by the United States Preventive Services Task Force. Clinically preventable burden is the total quality adjusted life years that could be gained if the clinical preventive services were delivered at recommended intervals to a British Columbia birth cohort of 40,000 individuals over the years of life that the service is recommended. Cost-effectiveness is the net cost per quality adjusted life year gained.
resultsClinical preventive services with the highest population impact and best value for money include services that address tobacco use in adolescents and adults, exclusive breastfeeding, and screening for hypertension and other cardiovascular disease risk factors followed by appropriate pharmaceutical treatment. In addition, alcohol misuse screening and brief counseling, one-time screening for hepatitis C virus infection in British Columbia adults born between 1945 and 1965, and screening for type 2 diabetes approach these high-value clinical preventive services.
conclusionsThese results enable policy makers to say with some confidence what preventive manoeuvres are worth doing but further work is required to determine the best way to deliver these services to all those eligible and to establish what supportive services are required. After all, if a clinical preventive service is worth doing, it is worth doing well.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.