Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Jul 7:4:107.
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00107. eCollection 2016.

The Precautionary Principle, Evidence-Based Medicine, and Decision Theory in Public Health Evaluation

Affiliations

The Precautionary Principle, Evidence-Based Medicine, and Decision Theory in Public Health Evaluation

Alastair J Fischer et al. Front Public Health. .

Abstract

The precautionary principle (PP) has been used in the evaluation of the effectiveness and/or cost-effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent future harms in a range of activities, particularly in the area of the environment. Here, we provide details of circumstances under which the PP can be applied to the topic of harm reduction in Public Health. The definition of PP that we use says that the PP reverses the onus of proof of effectiveness between an intervention and its comparator when the intervention has been designed to reduce harm. We first describe the two frameworks used for health-care evaluation: evidence-based medicine (EBM) and decision theory (DT). EBM is usually used in treatment effectiveness evaluation, while either EBM or DT may be used in evaluating the effectiveness of the prevention of illness. For cost-effectiveness, DT is always used. The expectation in Public Health is that interventions employed to reduce harm will not actually increase harm, where "harm" in this context does not include opportunity cost. That implies that an intervention's effectiveness can often be assumed. Attention should therefore focus on its cost-effectiveness. This view is consistent with the conclusions of DT. It is also very close to the PP notion of reversing the onus of proof, but is not consistent with EBM as normally practiced, where the onus is on showing a new practice to be superior to usual practice with a sufficiently high degree of certainty. Under our definitions, we show that where DT and the PP differ in their evaluation is in cost-effectiveness, but only for decisions that involve potential catastrophic circumstances, where the nation-state will act as if it is risk-averse. In those cases, it is likely that the state will pay more, and possibly much more, than DT would allow, in an attempt to mitigate impending disaster. That is, the rules that until now have governed all cost-effectiveness analyses are shown not to apply to catastrophic situations, where the PP applies.

Keywords: cost-effectiveness; decision theory; effectiveness; evidence-based medicine; precautionary principle.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The precautionary principle and cost-effectiveness in the absence of self-insurance. Countries are able to self-insure against health risks. They can thereby pool risks and act as if they were risk-neutral. If a health problem becomes so great that the country is unable to self-insure, it will become risk-averse and will be prepared to pay more per unit of health gain than if it is able to self-insure.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. (1992). Available from: http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&art...
    1. Grandjean P. Implications of the precautionary principle for primary prevention and research. Ann Rev Public Health (2004) 25:199–223.10.1146/annurev.publhealth.25.050503.153941 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Recuerda MA. Dangerous interpretations of the precautionary principle and the foundational values of the European Union Food Law: risk versus risk. J Food Law Policy (2008).
    1. Kinzig A, Starrett D, Arrow K, Aniyar S, Bolin B, Dasgupta P, et al. Coping with uncertainty: a call for a new science-policy forum. Ambio (2003) 32(5):330–5.10.1579/0044-7447-32.5.330 - DOI - PubMed
    1. John SD. How to take deontological concerns seriously in risk-cost-benefit analysis: a re-interpretation of the PP. J Med Ethics (2007) 33(4):221–4.10.1136/jme.2005.015677 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources