Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums
  • My alerts
The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow cfp Template on Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
Article CommentaryCommentary

Competing demands and opportunities in primary care

Christina Korownyk, James McCormack, Michael R. Kolber, Scott Garrison and G. Michael Allan
Canadian Family Physician September 2017; 63 (9) 664-668;
Christina Korownyk
Associate Professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton.
MD CCFP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: cpoag@ualberta.ca
James McCormack
Professor in the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.
PharmD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael R. Kolber
Associate Professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Alberta.
MD CCFP MSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Scott Garrison
Associate Professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Alberta.
MD CCFP PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
G. Michael Allan
Professor and Director of Evidence-Based Medicine in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Alberta.
MD CCFP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Common conditions and preventive interventions across primary care

    ACUTE SYMPTOMSLONG-TERM SYMPTOMATIC CONDITIONSCVD (PRIMARY PREVENTION)CANCER SCREENING (CANCER-SPECIFIC MORTALITY)SOCIAL SCREENING OR HEALTH PROMOTION
    Headache15: ASA or sumatriptan, NNT = 5 to 9 to be pain free at 2 hoursDepression16: antidepressants, NNT = 7 to 9 for response in 6 weeksStatin17–20: NNT = 55 to 77 over 5 years (any CVD)Mammogram21,22: NNS = 377 to 2000 over 10 yearsAlcohol screening23: No evidence of benefit in heaviest drinkers
    Knee osteoarthritis24: intra-articular steroid, NNT = 3 to 5 for global improvement over 4 weeksChronic neuropathic pain25,26: duloxetine or gabapentin, NNT = 6 to 8 at 3 months for reduction of ≥ 50%Metformin in diabetes27: NNT = 29 over 5 years (myocardial infarction)Fecal immunochemical testing28: NNS = 1200 over 10 years (assumed similar to fecal occult blood testing)Counseling on increased physical activity (single interventions)29–31: insufficient evidence of benefit
    Gout32: colchicine, NNT = 5 for ≥ 50% symptom free at 24 hoursHeadache33,34: tricyclic antidepressant or β-blocker, NNT = 4 to 8 over 6 months for reduction of 50%ASA35: NNT = 346 to 427 over 5 years (any CVD)Prostate-specific antigen36–38: NNS = 441 to 1410 over 10 yearsFamily violence screening39: increased awareness but insufficient evidence for improved outcomes
    Benign positional vertigo40: Epley maneuver, NNT = 3 for symptom resolutionConstipation (chronic)41: polyethylene glycol, NNT = 2 to 3 for resolution over 6 monthsHypertension (≥ 160 mm Hg)42,43: treated, NNT = about 20 over 5 years (any CVD)Cervical cancer44,45: NNS unknown (but 1 in 500 women die of cervical cancer when screened every 3 years compared with 1 in 100*)Screening for obesity46,47: no evidence of improved outcomes (about 3 kg of weight loss with behavioural programs at 1 y; no evidence of improved patient outcomes)
    • ASA—acetylsalicylic acid, CVD—cardiovascular disease, NNS—number needed to screen, NNT—number needed to treat.

    • ↵* Data are based largely on national cohort and case-control studies that demonstrate a strong association between the introduction of screening and reduced incidence of cervical cancer. One cluster randomized controlled trial from rural India shows a 0.35 relative reduction in mortality with a 1-time screen.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Comparison of benefit of interventions across primary care

    CATEGORYACUTE SYMPTOMSLONG-TERM SYMPTOMATIC CONDITIONSCVD (PRIMARY PREVENTION)CANCER SCREENING (CANCER-SPECIFIC MORTALITY)SOCIAL SCREENING OR HEALTH PROMOTION
    Estimated benefitNNT = about 5NNT = about 7NNT = about 40 over 5 yearsNNS = about 1000 over 10 yearsNNS = ∞
    Encounters with benefit per year176* to 720†143‡ to 617§3.25‖ to 12¶0.13# to 0.36**0
    Encounters with benefit over 30 years5280 to 21 6004290 to 18 54098 to 3604 to 110
    • CVD—cardiovascular disease, NNS—number needed to screen, NNT—number needed to treat.

    • ↵* Acute visits—conservative: Visits per year are based on 220 working days. Assuming 20 visits per day with 20% of visits having some acute symptom component, (220 × 20) × 0.2 = 880. Estimated NNT of 5 means 176 (880/5) encounters with benefit per year.

    • ↵† Acute visits—better case: Visits per year are based on 240 working days. Assuming 30 visits per day with 50% of visits having some acute symptom component, (240 × 30) × 0.5 = 3600. Estimated NNT of 5 means 720 (3600/5) encounters with benefit per year. Assumptions minimizing benefit include no weekends, holidays, or evenings worked.

    • ↵‡ Long-term symptomatic conditions—conservative: Based on a patient panel of 2000, assuming about 50% of patients have 1 continuing problem (note that some patients will have more and some will have none), then 2000 × 0.50 = 1000, with an NNT of 7 (1000/7 = about 143).

    • ↵§ Long-term symptomatic conditions—better case: Visits per year are based on 240 working days. Assuming 30 visits per day with 60% of visits having some chronic symptom component, (240 × 30) × 0.6 = 4320. Estimated NNT of 7 means 617 (4320/7) encounters with benefit per year.

    • ↵‖ Long-term CVD prevention—conservative: Using age 45 as the start of screening (knowing that is early) to age 75, that represents 32.5% of the population or 650 patients. Assuming all will be high enough risk to be offered at least 1 therapy, estimated NNT is 40 over 5 years (650/40 = 16.3 per 5 years, 16.3/5 = 3.25 per year).

    • ↵¶ Long-term CVD prevention—better case: Using age 45 as the start of screening (knowing that is early) to age 75, assuming this demographic makes up 60% of the patient panel or 1200 patients, and assuming all patients will be high enough risk to be offered at least 1 therapy, with the most effective therapy (hypertension treatment), NNT is estimated to be 20 over 5 years (1200/20 = 60 per 5 years, 60/5 = 12 per year).

    • ↵# Long-term cancer prevention—conservative: Assuming 650 eligible patients (as in CVD) and 2 maneuvers per patient, benefit would be 2 per 1000 over 10 years, or 1 in 500 over 10 years. So, we take 650/500 = 1.3 encounters with benefit over 10 years. That is 0.13 over 1 year or around 4 over 30 years.

    • ↵** Long-term cancer prevention—better case: Using age 45 as the start of screening (knowing that is early) to age 75, assuming this demographic makes up 60% of the patient panel or 1200 patients, and assuming the best-case scenario (ie, mammography with NNS = 337 over 10 years), 1200/337 = 3.6 over 10 years. That is 0.36 over 1 year.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Family Physician: 63 (9)
Canadian Family Physician
Vol. 63, Issue 9
1 Sep 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The College of Family Physicians of Canada.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Competing demands and opportunities in primary care
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The College of Family Physicians of Canada web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Competing demands and opportunities in primary care
Christina Korownyk, James McCormack, Michael R. Kolber, Scott Garrison, G. Michael Allan
Canadian Family Physician Sep 2017, 63 (9) 664-668;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Competing demands and opportunities in primary care
Christina Korownyk, James McCormack, Michael R. Kolber, Scott Garrison, G. Michael Allan
Canadian Family Physician Sep 2017, 63 (9) 664-668;
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Primary care and the 36-hour day
    • Primary care interventions
    • Important Considerations
    • What is the current state of primary care?
    • The next 25 years
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Demandes concurrentielles et possibilités en soins primaires
  • What is a medical journal good for?
  • Le premier examen gynécologique idéal imaginé par les jeunes filles
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Changing primary care capacity in Canada: protocol for a cross-provincial mixed methods study
  • Sacrificing patient care for prevention: distortion of the role of general practice
  • Understanding and addressing changing administrative workload in primary care in Canada: protocol for a mixed-method study
  • PEER simplified lipid guideline 2023 update: Prevention and management of cardiovascular disease in primary care
  • Lignes directrices simplifiees de PEER sur les lipides : actualisation 2023: Prevention et prise en charge des maladies cardiovasculaires en soins primaires
  • Ending the generational blame game: Let us move forward with needed primary care change
  • Mettre fin au jeu du blame generationnel: Entamons les changements necessaires en soins primaires
  • The value of family medicine: An impossible job, done impossibly well
  • Retards dans le depistage: Que faire maintenant?
  • Screening backlogs: How to move forward
  • Assessing new screening tests: Panacea or profligate?
  • Evaluer les nouveaux tests de depistage: Une panacee ou du gaspillage?
  • Do not routinely test for vitamin D
  • Should Radon Counseling Wait on Evidence?
  • Rethinking screening during and after COVID-19: Should things ever be the same again?
  • A primary care prevention revolution?
  • Une revolution de la prevention en soins primaires?
  • Cancer Screening Among Women Prescribed Opioids: A National Study
  • Mailed Letter Versus Phone Call to Increase Uptake of Cancer Screening: A Pragmatic, Randomized Trial
  • What is a medical journal good for?
  • A quoi une revue medicale sert-elle?
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Equipping family physicians to thrive
  • Will blended family physician payment models revive primary care in Canada?
  • Toward an identity and team-based practice rooted in transdisciplinarity
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Collections - English
  • Collections - Française

For Authors

  • Authors and Reviewers
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Permissions
  • Terms of Use

General Information

  • About CFP
  • About the CFPC
  • Advertisers
  • Careers & Locums
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Subscribers

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2025 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Powered by HighWire