The interventions of documented efficacy that have been developed for the treatment of cardiovascular disease risk factors have been neither rapidly nor completely incorporated into clinical practice. This may be due to not recognizing that there is a fundamental conflict between the attributes of the ideal protocol for testing the efficacy of an intervention and the attributes of ideal patient care. For example, when testing an intervention for efficacy, benefit to the subject must be made secondary to the goal of increasing the community's fund of knowledge. When caring for patients, increasing the community's fund of knowledge must be secondary to the goal of benefiting the patient who is receiving care. Therefore, the ideal efficacy-testing program is minimally responsive to the needs of the individual subject; the ideal treatment program is maximally responsive to the needs of the individual patient. A second reason for the slow incorporation of preventive cardiology into patient care is the current lack of a supporting structure. An understanding of the attributes of good patient care and the need for a structure to support preventive cardiology interventions should further the incorporation of preventive cardiology interventions into routine patient care while allowing patient care systems to be scrutinized with efficacy-testing protocols.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||7|
|Journal||American journal of preventive medicine|
|Issue number||2 SUPPL.|
|State||Published - 1990|