Skip to main content
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health logoLink to Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
. 1999 May;53(5):300–305. doi: 10.1136/jech.53.5.300

How good is the Prevent model for estimating the health benefits of prevention?

H Bronnum-Hansen
PMCID: PMC1756876  PMID: 10396537

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Prevent is a public health model for estimating the effect on mortality of changes in exposure to risk factors. When the model is tested by simulating a development that has already taken place, the results may differ considerably from the actual situation. The purpose of this study is to test the Prevent model by applying it to a synthetic cohort in which the development is unaffected by concealed factors. DESIGN: A micro-simulation model was developed to create basic data for Prevent and give "exact" results as to changes in risk factor prevalences and mortality. The estimates of Prevent simulations were compared with the "exact" results. MAIN RESULTS: Modelling one risk factor related to a cause specific mortality gave fairly similar results by the two methods. Including two risk factors Prevent tends slightly to overestimate the health benefits of prevention. CONCLUSIONS: The differences between the "exact" mortality and the Prevent estimates will be small for realistic scenarios and Prevent provide reasonable estimates of the health benefits of prevention.

 

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (161.3 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Anderson K. M., Wilson P. W., Odell P. M., Kannel W. B. An updated coronary risk profile. A statement for health professionals. Circulation. 1991 Jan;83(1):356–362. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.83.1.356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brønnum-Hansen H., Sjøl A. Forudsigelse af udviklingen i dødelighed af iskaemisk hjertesygdom i Danmark 1982-1991 ved anvendelse af simulationsmodellen Prevent. Ugeskr Laeger. 1996 Aug 26;158(35):4898–4904. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Evans W. K., Will B. P., Berthelot J. M., Wolfson M. C. Estimating the cost of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment in Canada: the POHEM model. Can J Oncol. 1995 Dec;5(4):408–419. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gunning-Schepers L. The health benefits of prevention: a simulation approach. Health Policy. 1989 Jul;12(1-2):1–255. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hunink M. G., Goldman L., Tosteson A. N., Mittleman M. A., Goldman P. A., Williams L. W., Tsevat J., Weinstein M. C. The recent decline in mortality from coronary heart disease, 1980-1990. The effect of secular trends in risk factors and treatment. JAMA. 1997 Feb 19;277(7):535–542. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Weinstein M. C., Coxson P. G., Williams L. W., Pass T. M., Stason W. B., Goldman L. Forecasting coronary heart disease incidence, mortality, and cost: the Coronary Heart Disease Policy Model. Am J Public Health. 1987 Nov;77(11):1417–1426. doi: 10.2105/ajph.77.11.1417. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Wolfson M. C. POHEM--a framework for understanding and modelling the health of human populations. World Health Stat Q. 1994;47(3-4):157–176. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES