Citation

Ratcliffe J, Wallack L. Int. Q. Community Health Educ. 1985; 6(3): 215-239.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1985, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.2190/CTQD-6DWT-L8AF-4MEE

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The common definition of primary prevention is straightforward; but how it is transformed into a framework to guide action is based on personal and societal feelings and beliefs about the basis for social organization. This article focuses on the two contending primary prevention strategies of health promotion and health protection. The contention between the two strategies stems from a basic disagreement about disease causality in modern society. Health promotion is based on the "lifestyle" theory of disease causality, which sees individual health status linked ultimately to personal decisions about diet, stress, and drug habits. Primary prevention, from this perspective, entails persuading individuals to forgo their risk-taking, self-destructive behavior. Health protection, on the other hand, is based on the "social-structural" theory of disease causality. This theory sees the health status of populations linked ultimately to the unequal distribution of social resources, industrial pollution, occupational stress, and "anti-health promotion" marketing practices. Primary prevention, from this perspective, requires changing existing social and, particularly, economic policies and structures. In order to provide a basis for choosing between these contending strategies, the demonstrated (i.e., past) impact of each strategy on the health of the public is examined. Two conclusions are drawn. First, the health promotion strategy shows little potential for improving the public health, because it systematically ignores the risk-imposing, other-destructive behavior of influential actors (policy-makers and institutions) in society. And second, effective primary prevention efforts entail an "upstream" approach that results in far-reaching sociopolitical and economic change.

Language: en