The Role of Primary Care in the Social Isolation and Loneliness Epidemic.

The United States is facing a social isolation and loneliness crisis. In response, the US Surgeon General issued an advisory in May 2023 recommending actions that health care, community programs, and social services can take to collaboratively improve social connection. Primary care has a critical role to play in implementing the Surgeon General's recommendations. We present social isolation and loneliness as medical issues and highlight next steps for the primary care sector to combat this epidemic.Annals Early Access article.

Well-Being Domains in U.S. Military Veterans: Identifying Modifiable Factors to Promote Whole Health.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is actively transitioning away from a disease-centric model of healthcare to one that prioritizes disease prevention and the promotion of overall health and well-being. Described as Whole Health, this initiative aims to provide personalized, values-centered care that optimizes physical, behavioral, spiritual, and socioeconomic well-being. To inform this initiative, we analyzed cross-sectional data from a nationally representative sample of primarily older U.S. military veterans to estimate levels of well-being across these domains, and identify sociodemographic, military, and potentially modifiable health and psychosocial correlates of them. Results revealed that, overall, veterans reported high domain-specific well-being (average scores ranging from 6.7 to 8.3 out of 10), with the highest levels in the socioeconomic domain and lowest in the physical domain. Several modifiable factors, including purpose in life, resilience, and social support, were strongly associated with the examined well-being domains. Interventions targeting these constructs may help promote well-being among U.S. veterans.

Neighborhood Predictors of Poor Prenatal Care and Well-Child Visit Attendance.

PURPOSE: Women and children continue to miss preventive visits. Which neighborhood factors predict inadequate prenatal care (PNC) and well-child visit (WCV) attendance remain unclear. DESCRIPTION: In a retrospective case-control study at Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, mothers with less than 50% adherence or initiation after 5 months gestation were eligible as cases and those with ≥ 80% adherence and initiation before 5 months were eligible as controls. Children in the lowest quintile of adherence were eligible as cases and those with ≥ 80% of adherence were eligible as controls. Cases and controls were randomly selected at a 1:2 ratio and matched on birth month. Covariates were derived from the 2018 American Community Survey. A hotspot was defined as a zip code tabulation area (ZCTA) with a proportion of controls less than 0.66. ZCTAs with fewer than 5 individuals were excluded. Weighted quantile regression was used to determine which covariates were most associated with inadequate attendance. ASSESSMENT: We identified 38 and 35 ZCTAs for the PNC and WCV analyses, respectively. Five of 11 hotspots for WCV were also hotspots for PNC. Education and income predicted 51% and 34% of the variation in missed PNCs, respectively; language, education and transportation difficulties explained 33%, 29%, and 17% of the variation in missed WCVs, respectively. Higher proportions of Black residents lived in hotspots of inadequate PCV and WCV attendance. CONCLUSION: Neighborhood-level factors performed well in predicting inadequate PCV and WCV attendance. The disproportionate impact impact of inadequate PCV and WCV in neighborhoods where higher proportions of Black people lived highlights the potential influence of systemic racism and segregation on healthcare utilization.

Lessons learned from CMS's National Partnership to Improve Dementia Care: a thematic synthesis of multiple stakeholder-engaged studies.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic prescribing in United States nursing homes (NHs) has decreased since the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Service debuted the National Partnership to Improve Dementia Care in Nursing Homes (NP); however, reductions have stalled. To help explain persistent antipsychotic use despite the NP's reduction efforts, the perspectives of diverse NP stakeholders were qualitatively assessed. This study aimed to re-evaluate these individual perspectives in combined thematic synthesis to discover NP improvement opportunities undetectable in single stakeholder assessments. METHODS: Thematic synthesis. Through immersive crystallisation, original source coding results were organised into related descriptive themes. Similarities and differences were identified, and descriptive themes were regrouped into new, increasingly abstract, analytical themes. This cycle continued until variances were resolved and analytic themes sufficiently described and explained all initial descriptive themes. RESULTS: Three analytic themes emerged regarding NP improvement opportunities. The NP's positive impacts would be augmented by: (i) a deeper and expanded appreciation of stakeholder perspectives; (ii) more urgent and rapid adaptation to unintended adverse outcomes; and (iii) greater recognition of the contextual and environmental factors influencing decisions to prescribe or not prescribe antipsychotic medications. Stakeholder groups described: perspectives they perceived as inadequately considered by the NP; insufficient NP engagement with the stakeholders capable of creating evidenced, affordable, and available non-pharmacologic therapies for dementia symptoms; recognition that dementia interventions effective for a specific individual at a specific time in a specific community may not generalise; and diverse ongoing undesirable outcomes from NP policies that could be mitigated by NP modifications. CONCLUSIONS: The NP has done much to advance dementia care in NHs. Notwithstanding, these results suggest the NP would only be improved through increasingly comprehensive inclusion of stakeholder perspectives, enhanced incorporation of individual contextual factors, and a more decisive mechanism for ongoing and continual adaptation.

Variation in Family Physicians' Experiences Across Different Electronic Health Record Platforms: a Descriptive Study.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) have been connected to excessive workload and physician burnout. Little is known about variation in physician experience with different EHRs, however. OBJECTIVE: To analyze variation in reported usability and satisfaction across EHRs. DESIGN: Internet-based survey available between December 2021 and October 2022 integrated into American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) certification process. PARTICIPANTS: ABFM-certified family physicians who use an EHR with at least 50 total responding physicians. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported experience of EHR usability and satisfaction. KEY RESULTS: We analyzed the responses of 3358 physicians who used one of nine EHRs. Epic, athenahealth, and Practice Fusion were rated significantly higher across six measures of usability. Overall, between 10 and 30% reported being very satisfied with their EHR, and another 32 to 40% report being somewhat satisfied. Physicians who use athenahealth or Epic were most likely to be very satisfied, while physicians using Allscripts, Cerner, or Greenway were the least likely to be very satisfied. EHR-specific factors were the greatest overall influence on variation in satisfaction: they explained 48% of variation in the probability of being very satisfied with Epic, 46% with eClinical Works, 14% with athenahealth, and 49% with Cerner. CONCLUSIONS: Meaningful differences exist in physician-reported usability and overall satisfaction with EHRs, largely explained by EHR-specific factors. User-centric design and implementation, and robust ongoing evaluation are needed to reduce physician burden and ensure excellent experience with EHRs.

Patients' Progress and Confidence Addressing Root Causes of Poor Health in Primary Care.

Context: Patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) may have unmet behavioral, mental, and social needs which can be difficult to address in primary care. Care planning provides a framework for patients to be screened, collaborate on a care plan, and access a patient navigator who can support them achieving their personal health goals. Objective: To compare patients' progress and confidence in addressing personal care plans for different topics. Study Design and Analysis: Clinician level randomized control trial and descriptive analyses. Dataset: My Own Health Report (MOHR) study and navigator field notes. Population Studied: As part of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate a feasible approach to patient care planning, 24 clinicians from 12 practices in the Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network (ACORN) in the Greater Richmond metro and the Northern Virginia areas participated in a care planning intervention. 91 patients in the intervention arm received support from a patient navigator for making and working on a goal. We focused on patients with uncontrolled chronic conditions that have complex needs. Intervention/Instrument: Community-clinical linkage support and navigator field notes in My Own Health Report (MOHR). Outcome Measures: We determined confidence and progress ratings (ranked by patients on 1-10 point scale), health risk assessment responses, and care plan topics selected by patients. Results: Patients feel more confident addressing nutrition than weight loss (mean = 8.07 vs 6.31, p=0.0031). Patients tended to report better prior progress on nutrition care plans (mean = 3.80) than physical activity (mean =2.95, p=0.0024) and weight loss (mean=2.93, p=0.004). Conclusions: Helping patients create care plans on topics they feel most comfortable addressing may better address root causes of poor health associated with chronic conditions. Connecting them with a patient navigator for the short-term may have long-term benefits for patients and care teams.

Putting Evidence Into Practice: An Update on the US Preventive Services Task Force Methods for Developing Recommendations for Preventive Services.

PURPOSE: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is an independent body that makes evidence-based recommendations regarding preventive services to improve health for people nationwide. Here, we summarize current USPSTF methods, describe how methods are evolving to address preventive health equity, and define evidence gaps for future research. METHODS: We summarize current USPSTF methods as well as ongoing methods development. RESULTS: The USPSTF prioritizes topics on the basis of disease burden, extent of new evidence, and whether the service can be provided in primary care and going forward will increasingly consider health equity. Analytic frameworks specify the key questions and linkages connecting the preventive service to health outcomes. Contextual questions provide information on natural history, current practice, health outcomes in high-risk groups, and health equity. The USPSTF assigns a level of certainty to the estimate of net benefit of a preventive service (high, moderate, or low). The magnitude of net benefit is also judged (substantial, moderate, small, or zero/negative). The USPSTF uses these assessments to assign a letter grade from A (recommend) to D (recommend against). I statements are issued when evidence is insufficient. CONCLUSIONS: The USPSTF will continue to evolve its methods for simulation modeling and to use evidence to address conditions for which there are limited data for population groups who bear a disproportionate burden of disease. Additional pilot work is underway to better understand the relations of the social constructs of race, ethnicity, and gender with health outcomes to inform the development of a USPSTF health equity framework.

Preventing opioid use disorder and misuse in asymptomatic primary care patients: A call for relevant primary prevention intervention research.

To contribute to the national effort to combat the opioid crisis, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a scoping review to describe the state of evidence for the primary prevention of opioid misuse or use disorder in persons not yet prescribed opioids or not yet misusing opioids. (Patnode et al., 2021) As found by the scoping review, sparse direct evidence focusing on primary care-relevant prevention interventions exists. The purpose of the current commentary is to describe the relevant research needed to effectively inform primary care providers and patients about how to reduce the risk for future opioid use disorder and opioid misuse and improve health outcomes in those not yet exposed to or misusing opioid medications.

Identifying bright spot communities: Socioecological, workforce, and healthcare delivery factors influencing opioid mortality.

Context: There were 50,000 U.S. opioid overdose deaths in 2019. Millions suffer from opioid addiction. Identifying protective factors for low community opioid mortality may have important implications for addressing the opioid epidemic. This study was funded through the Virginia (VA) Department of Medical Assistance Services (DMAS) through a SUPPORT Act Grant. Objective: To identify "Bright Spot" communities in Virginia with protective factors associated with reduced opioid mortality and morbidity. Study Design: Ecologic study. Dataset: Virginia All Payer Claims Database (APCD), Virginia Department of Health (VDH) statewide medical examiner registry, and American Community Survey (ACS). Time Period: 2016-2019; 2019 data cited here. Population Studied: APCD includes VA residents with medical claims through commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare coverage. VDH data includes fatal drug overdoses. ACS surveys all VA residents. Outcome Measures: Primary outcome: fatal opioid overdoses. Secondary outcomes: emergency room visits for overdoses and opioid-related diagnoses, outpatient diagnoses for opioid-related disorder, prescription rate for opioids, and prescription rate for buprenorphine. Results: Opioid mortality was associated with higher rates of community poverty (r=.38, p<.0001) and disability (r=.52, r<.0001). Opioid mortality was associated with inequality, with higher Gini index associated with higher opioid mortality (r=.23, p<.0001). A higher percentage of black residents was associated with increased fatal opioid overdoses (r=.37, p<.0001) and ED visits for overdoses (r=.30, p<.0001). A higher percentage of white residents correlated with increased outpatient visits for opioid use disorder (r=.24, p<.0001) and higher rates of buprenorphine (r=.34, p<.0001) and opioid prescriptions (r=.31, p <.0001). Conclusions: These findings suggest significant racial disparities in opioid outcomes. Communities with a higher percentage of black residents are more likely to have higher opioid mortality and a lower rate of outpatient treatment. This association may be affected by the time period used in the analysis (2015-2019), as nationally there has been an increasing rate of synthetic opioid deaths in Black communities. These measures have been incorporated into a multivariate analysis to identify Bright Spot communities, which will be discussed during the presentation.

Using State All-Payer Claims Data to Identify the Active Primary Care Workforce: A Novel Study in Virginia.

PURPOSE: Primary care is the foundation of the health care workforce and the only part that extends life and improves health equity. Previous research on the geographic and specialty distribution of physicians has relied on the American Medical Association's Masterfile, but these data have limitations that overestimate the workforce. METHODS: We present a pragmatic, systematic, and more accurate method for identifying primary care physicians using the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) and the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database (VA-APCD). Between 2015 and 2019, we identified all Virginia physicians and their specialty through the NPPES. Active physicians were defined by at least 1 claim in the VA-APCD. Specialty was determined hierarchically by the NPPES. Wellness visits were used to identify non-family medicine physicians who were providing primary care. RESULTS: In 2019, there were 20,976 active physicians in Virginia, of whom 5,899 (28.1%) were classified as providing primary care. Of this primary care physician workforce, 52.4% were family medicine physicians; the remaining were internal medicine physicians (18.5%), pediatricians (16.8%), obstetricians and gynecologists (11.8%), and other specialists (0.5%). Over 5 years, the counts and relative percentages of the workforce made up by primary care physicians remained relatively stable. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel method of identifying active physicians with a primary care scope provides a realistic size of the primary care workforce in Virginia, smaller than some previous estimates. Although the method should be expanded to include advanced practice clinicians and to further delineate the scope of practice, this simple approach can be used by policy makers, payers, and planners to ensure adequate primary care capacity.

External Validation of the COVID-NoLab and COVID-SimpleLab Prognostic Tools.

Our objective was to externally validate 2 simple risk scores for mortality among a mostly inpatient population with COVID-19 in Canada (588 patients for COVID-NoLab and 479 patients for COVID-SimpleLab). The mortality rates in the low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups for COVID-NoLab were 1.1%, 9.6%, and 21.2%, respectively. The mortality rates for COVID-SimpleLab were 0.0%, 9.8%, and 20.0%, respectively. These values were similar to those in the original derivation cohort. The 2 simple risk scores, now successfully externally validated, offer clinicians a reliable way to quickly identify low-risk inpatients who could potentially be managed as outpatients in the event of a bed shortage. Both are available online (https://ebell-projects.shinyapps.io/covid_nolab/ and https://ebell-projects.shinyapps.io/COVID-SimpleLab/).

Screening for Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Glaucoma affects an estimated 2.7 million people in the US. It is the second-leading cause of irreversible blindness in the US and the leading cause of blindness in Black and Hispanic/Latino persons. Objective: To update its 2013 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for glaucoma in adults. Population: Adults 40 years or older who present in primary care and do not have signs or symptoms of open-angle glaucoma. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for glaucoma in adults. The benefits and harms of screening for glaucoma in adults are uncertain. More research is needed. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for primary open-angle glaucoma in adults. (I statement).

Screening for Impaired Visual Acuity in Older Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Impairment of visual acuity is a serious public health problem in older adults. The number of persons 60 years or older with impaired visual acuity (defined as best corrected visual acuity worse than 20/40 but better than 20/200) was estimated at 2.91 million in 2015, and the number who are blind (defined as best corrected visual acuity of 20/200 or worse) was estimated at 760 000. Impaired visual acuity is consistently associated with decreased quality of life in older persons, including reduced ability to perform activities of daily living, work, and drive safely, as well as increased risk of falls and other unintentional injuries. Objective: To update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for impaired visual acuity in older adults. Population: Asymptomatic adults 65 years or older who present in primary care without known impaired visual acuity and are not seeking care for vision problems. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for impaired visual acuity in asymptomatic older adults. The evidence is lacking, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. More research is needed. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for impaired visual acuity in older adults. (I statement).

Aspirin Use to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality in the US, accounting for more than 1 in 4 deaths. Each year, an estimated 605 000 people in the US have a first myocardial infarction and an estimated 610 000 experience a first stroke. Objective: To update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on the effectiveness of aspirin to reduce the risk of CVD events (myocardial infarction and stroke), cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality in persons without a history of CVD. The systematic review also investigated the effect of aspirin use on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality in primary CVD prevention populations, as well as the harms (particularly bleeding) associated with aspirin use. The USPSTF also commissioned a microsimulation modeling study to assess the net balance of benefits and harms from aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD and CRC, stratified by age, sex, and CVD risk level. Population: Adults 40 years or older without signs or symptoms of CVD or known CVD (including history of myocardial infarction or stroke) who are not at increased risk for bleeding (eg, no history of gastrointestinal ulcers, recent bleeding, other medical conditions, or use of medications that increase bleeding risk). Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults aged 40 to 59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk has a small net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that initiating aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults 60 years or older has no net benefit. Recommendation: The decision to initiate low-dose aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD in adults aged 40 to 59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk should be an individual one. Evidence indicates that the net benefit of aspirin use in this group is small. Persons who are not at increased risk for bleeding and are willing to take low-dose aspirin daily are more likely to benefit. (C recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against initiating low-dose aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD in adults 60 years or older. (D recommendation).

Developing Primary Care-Based Recommendations for Social Determinants of Health: Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

The purpose of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is to provide evidence-based recommendations on primary care screening, behavioral counseling, and preventive medications. A person's health is strongly influenced by social determinants of health, such as economic and social conditions; therefore, preventive recommendations that address these determinants would be ideal. However, differing social determinants have been proposed by a wide range of agencies and organizations, little prevention evidence is available, and responsible parties are in competition, all of which make the creation of evidence-based prevention recommendations for social determinants of health challenging. This article highlights social determinants already included in USPSTF recommendations and proposes a process by which others may be considered for primary care preventive recommendations. In many ways, incorporating social determinants of health into evidence-based recommendations is an evolving area. By reviewing the evidence on the effects of screening and interventions on social determinants relevant to primary care, the USPSTF will continue to provide recommendations on clinical preventive services to improve the health of all Americans.

Incorporation of Social Risk in US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations and Identification of Key Challenges for Primary Care.

IMPORTANCE: In its mission to improve health, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recognizes the strong relationship between a person's health and social and economic circumstances as well as persistent inequities in health care delivery. OBJECTIVE: To assess how social risks have been considered in USPSTF recommendation statements and identify current gaps in evidence needed to expand the systematic inclusion of social risks in future recommendations. EVIDENCE: The USPSTF commissioned a technical brief that reviewed existing literature on screening and interventions for social risk factors and also audited the 85 USPSTF recommendation statements active as of December 2019 to determine how social risks were addressed in clinical preventive services recommendations. FINDINGS: Among the 85 USPSTF recommendation statements reviewed, 14 were focused on preventive services that considered health-related social risks. Social risks were commonly referenced in parts of USPSTF recommendations, with 57 of 85 recommendations including some comment on social risks within the recommendation statement, although many comments were not separate prevention services. Social risks were commented on in USPSTF recommendations as part of risk assessment, as a marker of worse health outcomes from the condition of focus, as a consideration for clinicians when implementing the preventive service, and as a research need or gap on the topic. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This report identified how social risks have been considered in the USPSTF recommendation statements. It serves as a benchmark and foundation for ongoing work to advance the goal of ensuring that health equity and social risks are incorporated in USPSTF methods and recommendations.

USPSTF Approach to Addressing Sex and Gender When Making Recommendations for Clinical Preventive Services.

Clinical preventive service recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) are based on transparent, systematic, and rigorous methods that consider the certainty of the evidence and magnitude of net benefit. These guidelines aim to address the needs of diverse populations. Biological sex and gender identity are sources of diversity that are not often considered in studies of clinical preventive services that inform the recommendations, resulting in challenges when evaluating the evidence and communicating recommendations for persons in specific gender identification categories (man/woman/gender nonbinary/gender nonconforming/transgender). To advance its methods, the USPSTF reviewed its past recommendations that included the use of sex and gender terms, reviewed the approaches of other guideline-making bodies, and pilot tested strategies to address sex and gender diversity. Based on the findings, the USPSTF intends to use an inclusive approach to identify issues related to sex and gender at the start of the guideline development process; assess the applicability, variability, and quality of evidence as a function of sex and gender; ensure clarity in the use of language regarding sex and gender; and identify evidence gaps related to sex and gender. Evidence reviews will identify the limitations of applying findings to diverse groups from underlying studies that used unclear terminology regarding sex and gender. The USPSTF will use gender-neutral language when appropriate to communicate that recommendations are inclusive of people of any gender and will clearly state when recommendations apply to individuals with specific anatomy associated with biological sex (male/female) or to specific categories of gender identity. The USPSTF recognizes limited evidence to inform the preventive care of populations based on gender identity.

Screening for Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: An estimated 13% of all US adults (18 years or older) have diabetes, and 34.5% meet criteria for prediabetes. The prevalences of prediabetes and diabetes are higher in older adults. Estimates of the risk of progression from prediabetes to diabetes vary widely, perhaps because of differences in the definition of prediabetes or the heterogeneity of prediabetes. Diabetes is the leading cause of kidney failure and new cases of blindness among adults in the US. It is also associated with increased risks of cardiovascular disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and was estimated to be the seventh leading cause of death in the US in 2017. Screening asymptomatic adults for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes may allow earlier detection, diagnosis, and treatment, with the ultimate goal of improving health outcomes. Objective: To update its 2015 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in asymptomatic, nonpregnant adults and preventive interventions for those with prediabetes. Population: Nonpregnant adults aged 35 to 70 years seen in primary care settings who have overweight or obesity (defined as a body mass index ≥25 and ≥30, respectively) and no symptoms of diabetes. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes and offering or referring patients with prediabetes to effective preventive interventions has a moderate net benefit. Conclusions and Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in adults aged 35 to 70 years who have overweight or obesity. Clinicians should offer or refer patients with prediabetes to effective preventive interventions. (B recommendation).

Interventions for Tobacco Smoking Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Persons: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

IMPORTANCE: Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the US. In 2014, it was estimated that 480 000 deaths annually are attributed to cigarette smoking, including second hand smoke exposure. Smoking during pregnancy can increase the risk of numerous adverse pregnancy outcomes (eg, miscarriage and congenital anomalies) and complications in the offspring (including sudden infant death syndrome and impaired lung function in childhood). In 2019, an estimated 50.6 million US adults (20.8% of the adult population) used tobacco; 14.0% of the US adult population currently smoked cigarettes and 4.5% of the adult population used electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). Among pregnant US women who gave birth in 2016, 7.2% reported smoking cigarettes while pregnant. OBJECTIVE: To update its 2015 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review to evaluate the benefits and harms of primary care interventions on tobacco use cessation in adults, including pregnant persons. POPULATION: This recommendation statement applies to adults 18 years or older, including pregnant persons. EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the net benefit of behavioral interventions and US Food and Drug Associated (FDA)-approved pharmacotherapy for tobacco smoking cessation, alone or combined, in nonpregnant adults who smoke is substantial. The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the net benefit of behavioral interventions for tobacco smoking cessation on perinatal outcomes and smoking cessation in pregnant persons is substantial. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence on pharmacotherapy interventions for tobacco smoking cessation in pregnant persons is insufficient because few studies are available, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence on the use of e-cigarettes for tobacco smoking cessation in adults, including pregnant persons, is insufficient, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. The USPSTF has identified the lack of well-designed, randomized clinical trials on e-cigarettes that report smoking abstinence or adverse events as a critical gap in the evidence. RECOMMENDATIONS: The USPSTF recommends that clinicians ask all adults about tobacco use, advise them to stop using tobacco, and provide behavioral interventions and FDA-approved pharmacotherapy for cessation to nonpregnant adults who use tobacco. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians ask all pregnant persons about tobacco use, advise them to stop using tobacco, and provide behavioral interventions for cessation to pregnant persons who use tobacco. (A recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of pharmacotherapy interventions for tobacco cessation in pregnant persons. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of e-cigarettes for tobacco cessation in adults, including pregnant persons. The USPSTF recommends that clinicians direct patients who use tobacco to other tobacco cessation interventions with proven effectiveness and established safety. (I statement).

Screening for Hearing Loss in Older Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Age-related sensorineural hearing loss is a common health problem among adults. Nearly 16% of US adults 18 years or older report difficulty hearing. The prevalence of perceived hearing loss increases with age. Hearing loss can adversely affect an individual's quality of life and ability to function independently and has been associated with increased risk of falls, hospitalizations, social isolation, and cognitive decline. Objective: To update its 2012 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on screening for hearing loss in adults 50 years or older. Population: Asymptomatic adults 50 years or older with age-related hearing loss. Evidence Assessment: Because of a lack of evidence, the USPSTF concludes that the benefits and harms of screening for hearing loss in asymptomatic older adults are uncertain and that the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. More research is needed. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for hearing loss in older adults. (I statement).