Which client would have been most likely to receive care from the Frontier Nursing Service?
 

Choice A reason: Secondary prevention involves early detection, like STI screenings. Safe sex education aims to prevent infection before it occurs, not identify existing cases. It targets behavior to stop disease onset, distinguishing it from reactive measures addressing already-present conditions epidemiologically here fully.

Choice B reason: Policy development crafts rules, like condom distribution laws. Education is an action, not policy creation, though it may support it. This focuses on individual prevention, not systemic regulation, separating it from broader public health infrastructure changes distinctly and comprehensively overall.

Choice C reason: Tertiary prevention manages existing disease, like HIV treatment adherence. Safe sex education prevents initial infection, not complications. It’s proactive, targeting susceptibles before exposure, contrasting with efforts to reduce impact in already-affected individuals biologically and practically in scope here.

Choice D reason: Primary prevention stops disease before it starts, like safe sex education reducing STI risk. By teaching condom use, it builds immunity to exposure, a proactive step aligning with public health’s goal to lower incidence rates preemptively across populations effectively and clearly.

Choice A reason: Teaching about lead is primary; screening is secondary. This errors per prevention levels. It’s universally distinct, pre-exposure focus.

Choice B reason: Blood lead screening detects exposure early, a secondary strategy. This aligns with public health standards. It’s universally applied, distinctly accurate.

Choice C reason: Referral is tertiary, managing lead toxicity. Screening fits, per nursing. This errors in level. It’s universally distinct, treatment-based.

Choice D reason: Cleanup is primary prevention; screening catches issues. This misaligns with secondary focus. It’s universally distinct, not detection.