Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:38:09.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Prevention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
From the Editor
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2011 

It is hard to argue against Desiderius Erasmus’s (1466–1536) simple maxim: prevention is better than cure. Indeed, in more recent times prevention has come to be used as an organising principle to create a framework that encompasses almost all medical activity (Reference Bertolote, Gelder, Andreasen and López-IborBertolote 2009). Primary prevention aims to protect against the occurrence of disease; secondary prevention, to detect and treat early, thus ameliorating the consequences of disease; tertiary prevention, to minimise disabilities. Also described are ‘primordial prevention’ – preventing social and environmental conditions that predispose to disease – and ‘quaternary prevention’ – avoiding the consequences of excessive intervention of the health system (Reference Starfield, Hyde and GérvasStarfield 2008).

This issue of Advances focuses on secondary prevention in psychosis, with two articles and an editorial from Melbourne, Australia, ‘the cradle of early intervention’ (Castle, pp. 398–400; Murphy & Brewer, pp. 401–407, 408–416). Do good intentions translate to effective treatments and to better and more efficient ways to organise services? Primary prevention in schizophrenia is tricky, as the prodrome is ‘a classic area of uncertainty’ and the majority of those at ‘ultra high risk’ do not develop a major psychotic disorder (Reference BarnesBarnes 2011). Does intensive treatment during the so-called critical period lead to better outcomes, not just at the time but in the much longer term? Is reducing the duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) both a realistic goal and likely to alter the disease trajectory? Or is long DUP related to insidious onset and merely a marker of poor prognosis? Are youth-specific services an advantage? And how is transition from specialist to generic services best managed without disrupting continuity of care?

ADHD in adults

Transitions are a fraught issue in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) too. Fifteen per cent of children diagnosed with ADHD will still meet diagnostic criteria at 25 years of age. Many more will have continuing subsyndromal symptoms (Crimlisk pp. 461–469). At a crucial developmental stage, young people may have to move from one service to another (Reference SinghSingh 2009). Adult mental health teams may be less familiar with the disorder. They may feel ‘scepticism and anxiety’ about the diagnosis and treatment in the same way that child and adolescent mental health services did 30 years ago. My Editor’s pick this month describes the core symptoms of the disorder and how they may manifest differently in adults (Crimlisk, pp. 461–469). In describing how to manage a good transition, the author discusses how services are best integrated and signposts a number of helpful resources for clinicians working in adult mental health teams.

References

Barnes, TRE, Schizophrenia Consensus Group of the British Association of Psychopharmacology (2011) Evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia. Journal of Psychopharmacology 25: 567620.Google Scholar
Bertolote, JM (2009) Primary prevention of mental disorders. In New Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry (2nd edn) (eds Gelder, MG, Andreasen, NC, López-Ibor, JJ Jr et al): 1446–51. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Singh, SP (2009) Transition of care from child to adult mental health services: the great divide. Current Opinion in Psychiatry 22: 386–90.Google Scholar
Starfield, B, Hyde, J, Gérvas, J et al (2008) The concept of prevention: a good idea gone astray? Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 62: 580–3.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.