Priority Topics for the Community Preventive Services Task Force, 2020-2025: A Data-Driven, Partner-Informed Approach.

INTRODUCTION: The Community Preventive Services Task Force periodically engages in a process to identify priority topics to guide their work. This article described the process and results for selecting priority topics to guide the work of the Community Preventive Services Task Force for the period 2020-2025. METHODS: The Community Preventive Services Task Force started with Healthy People 2020 topics. They solicited input on topics from partner organizations and the public. The Community Preventive Services Task Force considered information on 8 criteria for each topic. They conducted preliminary voting and applied a priori decision rules regarding the voting results. The Community Preventive Services Task Force then engaged in facilitated deliberations and took a final vote. This process occurred October 2019-June 2020. RESULTS: From Healthy People 2020, a total of 37 topics were selected as the starting point. The initial voting and decision rules resulted in 3 topics being determined as priorities. Community Preventive Services Task Force members considered data and information on the criteria to inform their deliberations on an additional 7 topics. A total of 9 topics were selected as the set of priorities for 2020-2025. CONCLUSIONS: Having a process that is routine and data-driven ensures that the selection of priorities is sound. By reviewing priority topics every 5 years, the Community Preventive Services Task Force will continue to provide relevant recommendations on community preventive services to improve the nation's health.

Sources of Support for Studies That Inform Recommendations of the Community Preventive Services Task Force.

OBJECTIVES: The Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) makes evidence-based recommendations about preventive services, programs, and policies in community settings to improve public health. CPSTF recommendations are based on systematic evidence reviews. This study examined the sponsors (ie, sources of financial, material, or intellectual support) for publications included in systematic reviews used by the CPSTF to make recommendations during a 9-year period. METHODS: We examined systematic evidence reviews (effectiveness reviews and economic reviews) for CPSTF findings issued from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2018. We assessed study publications used in these reviews for sources of support; we classified sources as government, nonprofit, industry, or no identified support. We also identified country of origin for each sponsor and the most frequently mentioned sponsors. RESULTS: The CPSTF issued findings based on 144 systematic reviews (106 effectiveness reviews and 38 economic reviews). These reviews included 3846 publications: 3363 publications in effectiveness reviews and 483 publications in economic reviews. Government agencies supported 57.1% (n = 1919) of publications in effectiveness reviews and 59.2% (n = 286) in economic reviews. More than 1500 study sponsors from 36 countries provided support. The National Institutes of Health was the leading sponsor for effectiveness reviews (21.3%; 718 of 3363) and economic reviews (16.2%; 78 of 480), followed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (7.0%; 234 of 3363 effectiveness reviews and 14.8%; 71 of 480 economic reviews). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base used by the CPSTF was supported by an array of sponsors, with government agencies providing the most support. Study findings highlight the need for sponsorship transparency and the role of government as a leading supporter of studies that underpin CPSTF recommendations for improving public health.