In this article we delineate a systematic approachfor incorporating qualitative methods in research on primary prevention. Using examples from our studies of both smoking and cessation processes, we describe our procedure in four consecutive stages: (]) interviews and fieldnotes, (2) case studies or life histories, (3) discourse and content analyses to identify emergent issues and themes which are subsequently standardized as codes, and (4) the interpretation of sociocultural patterns and idioms of bodily experience. The relevance of qualitative methods in primary preventive medicine is discussed with examples from our own research on smoking. We argue that this form of basic research is an essential precursor to culturally effective interventions in clinical as well as community settings.

A randomized trial of family caregiver support for the home management of older people suffering from moderate to severe progressive irreversible dementia was conducted in an urban center in southern Ontario. Thirty caregivers were allocated to receive the experimental intervention consisting of: caregiver-focused health care, education about dementia and caregiving, assistance with problem solving, regularly scheduled in-home respite, and a self-help family caregiver support group. Thirty control subjects received conventional community nursing care. Before completion of the intervention, 18 (30%) were withdrawn, almost equally from each group. The most frequent reason was long-term institutionalization of the demented relative (n = 10). At baseline, caregivers in both groups were suffering from above-average levels of depression and anxiety. After the six-month intervention period, we found neither experimental nor control group improved in these areas. However, the experimental group showed a clinically important improvement in quality of life, experienced a slightly longer mean time to long-term institutionalization, found the caregiver role less problematic, and had greater satisfaction with nursing care than the control group.

An economic evaluation was undertaken concurrently with a randomized trial comparing a Caregiver Support Program (CSP) with existing conventional community nursing care for those caring for elderly relatives at home. The differences in resource consumption were compared with changes in caregiver quality of life, as measured by the Caregiver Quality of Life Instrument (CQLI). A 20% difference from baseline in the CQLI favored the experimental (CSP) group, although this did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance. A comparison of improvement in quality of life with costs implies an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of Canadian $20,000 for the CSP, which compares favorably with other health care interventions. Further, larger studies are required to confirm this result.

The results of a multicentered randomised clinical trial are reported of bed rest and of a physiotherapy and education programme for patients who presented in family practice with an acute episode of low back pain. No beneficial effect of either treatment was observed on several clinical outcome measures, including straight leg raising, lumbar flexion, activities of daily living, and pain. In fact the results favoured early mobilisation over bed rest and suggested that the physiotherapy and education programme was doing more harm than good. Moreover, additional analyses, which focused on clinically interesting patient subgroups, discovered no subset of patients who benefited from either of the treatments under study. Having failed to identify any clinically important benefits, or other explanations for these negative results, we can only conclude that family doctors have little reason to prescribe either bed rest or isometric exercises to patients who suffer from low back pain.

No abstract