RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Solidão , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Isolamento Social , Humanos , Solidão/psicologia , Isolamento Social/psicologia , Estados Unidos , COVID-19/psicologia , COVID-19/epidemiologia , EpidemiasRESUMO
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.
RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Cuidado Pré-Natal , Características de Residência , Humanos , Gravidez , Feminino , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estudos de Casos e Controles , RendaRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Explore the indications for long-stay gabapentin use and elucidate the factors spurring the rapid increase in gabapentin prescribing in nursing homes (NHs). METHODS: National cross-sectional survey of NH prescribers distributed anonymously using SurveyMonkey. Sampling for convenience was obtained through crowdsourcing, leveraging collaborations with NH clinician organizations. Developed by a multidisciplinary team, pilot data/existing literature informed survey content. RESULTS: A total of 131 surveys completed. Participants: 71% white, 52% female, 71% physicians. Off-label gabapentin prescribing was ubiquitous. Nearly every clinician used gabapentin for neuropathic pain, most for any form of pain. Many clinicians also prescribe gabapentin to moderate psychiatric symptoms and behaviors. Clinicians' prescribing was influenced by opioid, antipsychotic, and anxiolytic reduction policies because gabapentin was perceived as an unmonitored and safer alternative. CONCLUSIONS: Off-label gabapentin increases are closely linked to opioid reduction efforts as more NH clinicians utilize gabapentin as an unmonitored opioid alternative. Our results highlight, however, the less recognized significance of long-stay prescribing for psychiatric symptoms and the similar contribution of psychotropic reduction initiatives, a phenomenon warranting further scrutiny. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians perceive gabapentin as safer than the drugs it is replacing. Whether this is true remains unclear; the individual- and population-level risks of increased gabapentin use are largely unknown.
RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Equidade em Saúde , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Comitês Consultivos , Serviços Preventivos de Saúde , PrevisõesRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides , Uso Indevido de Medicamentos sob Prescrição , Analgésicos Opioides/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides/tratamento farmacológico , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides/prevenção & controle , Uso Indevido de Medicamentos sob Prescrição/prevenção & controle , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Prevenção Primária , Estados UnidosRESUMO
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/).
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , Prognóstico , Canadá/epidemiologia , Pacientes Internados , Pacientes AmbulatoriaisRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Medicina , Especialização , Humanos , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Estados Unidos , Virginia , Recursos HumanosRESUMO
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 760â¯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).
Assuntos
Transtornos da Visão , Seleção Visual , Atividades Cotidianas , Comitês Consultivos , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Humanos , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos , Atenção Primária à Saúde/métodos , Qualidade de Vida , Medição de Risco , Transtornos da Visão/diagnóstico , Transtornos da Visão/etiologia , Transtornos da Visão/terapia , Seleção Visual/métodos , Acuidade VisualRESUMO
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 605â¯000 people in the US have a first myocardial infarction and an estimated 610â¯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).
Assuntos
Aspirina , Doenças Cardiovasculares , Adulto , Aspirina/efeitos adversos , Aspirina/uso terapêutico , Doenças Cardiovasculares/diagnóstico , Doenças Cardiovasculares/mortalidade , Doenças Cardiovasculares/prevenção & controle , Neoplasias Colorretais/mortalidade , Neoplasias Colorretais/prevenção & controle , Simulação por Computador , Hemorragia/induzido quimicamente , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Infarto do Miocárdio/tratamento farmacológico , Infarto do Miocárdio/prevenção & controle , Prevenção Primária , Medição de Risco , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/tratamento farmacológico , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/prevenção & controleRESUMO
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).
Assuntos
Glaucoma de Ângulo Aberto , Programas de Rastreamento , Adulto , Comitês Consultivos , Cegueira , Glaucoma de Ângulo Aberto/diagnóstico , Glaucoma de Ângulo Aberto/terapia , Humanos , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Serviços Preventivos de Saúde , Medição de Risco , Estados UnidosRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Serviços Preventivos de Saúde , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Determinantes Sociais da Saúde , Comitês Consultivos , Insegurança Alimentar , Guias como Assunto , Habitação , Humanos , Fatores de Risco , Fatores Socioeconômicos , Estados UnidosRESUMO
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.
Assuntos
Identidade de Gênero , Serviços Preventivos de Saúde , Sexo , Comitês Consultivos , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Serviços Preventivos de Saúde/normas , Pessoas Transgênero , Estados UnidosRESUMO
Importance: The prevalence of overweight and obesity is increasing among persons of childbearing age and pregnant persons. In 2015, almost half of all persons began pregnancy with overweight (24%) or obesity (24%). Reported rates of overweight and obesity are higher among Black, Alaska Native/American Indian, and Hispanic women and lower among White and Asian women. Excess weight at the beginning of pregnancy and excess gestational weight gain have been associated with adverse maternal and infant health outcomes such as a large for gestational age infant, cesarean delivery, or preterm birth. Objective: The USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of behavioral counseling interventions to prevent adverse health outcomes associated with obesity during pregnancy and to evaluate intermediate outcomes, including excess gestational weight gain. This is a new recommendation. Population: Pregnant adolescents and adults in primary care settings. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that behavioral counseling interventions aimed at promoting healthy weight gain and preventing excess gestational weight gain in pregnancy have a moderate net benefit for pregnant persons. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends that clinicians offer pregnant persons effective behavioral counseling interventions aimed at promoting healthy weight gain and preventing excess gestational weight gain in pregnancy. (B recommendation).
Assuntos
Terapia Comportamental , Aconselhamento , Ganho de Peso na Gestação , Adolescente , Adulto , Feminino , Macrossomia Fetal/prevenção & controle , Comportamentos Relacionados com a Saúde , Humanos , Obesidade/prevenção & controle , Obesidade/terapia , Gravidez , Complicações na Gravidez/prevenção & controleRESUMO
Importance: Hypertension is a prevalent condition that affects approximately 45% of the adult US population and is the most commonly diagnosed condition at outpatient office visits. Hypertension is a major contributing risk factor for heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and chronic kidney disease. Objective: To reaffirm its 2015 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for hypertension in adults, the accuracy of office blood pressure measurement for initial screening, and the accuracy of various confirmatory blood pressure measurement methods. Population: Adults 18 years or older without known hypertension. Evidence Assessment: Using a reaffirmation deliberation process, the USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for hypertension in adults has substantial net benefit. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for hypertension in adults 18 years or older with office blood pressure measurement. The USPSTF recommends obtaining blood pressure measurements outside of the clinical setting for diagnostic confirmation before starting treatment. (A recommendation).
Assuntos
Determinação da Pressão Arterial/métodos , Hipertensão/diagnóstico , Programas de Rastreamento/normas , Adolescente , Adulto , Determinação da Pressão Arterial/normas , Monitorização Ambulatorial da Pressão Arterial , Doenças Cardiovasculares/prevenção & controle , HumanosRESUMO
Importance: Colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death for both men and women, with an estimated 52â¯980 persons in the US projected to die of colorectal cancer in 2021. Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among persons aged 65 to 74 years. It is estimated that 10.5% of new colorectal cancer cases occur in persons younger than 50 years. Incidence of colorectal cancer (specifically adenocarcinoma) in adults aged 40 to 49 years has increased by almost 15% from 2000-2002 to 2014-2016. In 2016, 26% of eligible adults in the US had never been screened for colorectal cancer and in 2018, 31% were not up to date with screening. 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 colorectal cancer in adults 40 years or older. The review also examined whether these findings varied by age, sex, or race/ethnicity. In addition, as in 2016, the USPSTF commissioned a report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network Colorectal Cancer Working Group to provide information from comparative modeling on how estimated life-years gained, colorectal cancer cases averted, and colorectal cancer deaths averted vary by different starting and stopping ages for various screening strategies. Population: Asymptomatic adults 45 years or older at average risk of colorectal cancer (ie, no prior diagnosis of colorectal cancer, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease; no personal diagnosis or family history of known genetic disorders that predispose them to a high lifetime risk of colorectal cancer [such as Lynch syndrome or familial adenomatous polyposis]). Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 50 to 75 years has substantial net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years has moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years who have been previously screened has small net benefit. Adults who have never been screened for colorectal cancer are more likely to benefit. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in all adults aged 50 to 75 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians selectively offer screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years. Evidence indicates that the net benefit of screening all persons in this age group is small. In determining whether this service is appropriate in individual cases, patients and clinicians should consider the patient's overall health, prior screening history, and preferences. (C recommendation).
Assuntos
Colonoscopia , Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Detecção Precoce de Câncer , Sangue Oculto , Fatores Etários , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Colonoscopia/métodos , Neoplasias Colorretais/etnologia , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/efeitos adversos , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/métodos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Risco , Sigmoidoscopia , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios XRESUMO
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).
Assuntos
Perda Auditiva Neurossensorial/diagnóstico , Programas de Rastreamento , Idoso , Auxiliares de Audição , Perda Auditiva/diagnóstico , Perda Auditiva Neurossensorial/reabilitação , Testes Auditivos/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Programas de Rastreamento/efeitos adversos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Qualidade de Vida , Medição de Risco , Sensibilidade e EspecificidadeRESUMO
Importance: Vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin that performs an important role in calcium homeostasis and bone metabolism and also affects many other cellular regulatory functions outside the skeletal system. Vitamin D requirements may vary by individual; thus, no one serum vitamin D level cutpoint defines deficiency, and no consensus exists regarding the precise serum levels of vitamin D that represent optimal health or sufficiency. Objective: To update its 2014 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on screening for vitamin D deficiency, including the benefits and harms of screening and early treatment. Population: Community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults who have no signs or symptoms of vitamin D deficiency or conditions for which vitamin D treatment is recommended. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the overall evidence on the benefits of screening for vitamin D deficiency is lacking. Therefore, the balance of benefits and harms of screening for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults cannot be determined. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults. (I statement).
Assuntos
Programas de Rastreamento , Deficiência de Vitamina D/diagnóstico , Vitamina D/análogos & derivados , Adulto , Doenças Assintomáticas , Humanos , Programas de Rastreamento/efeitos adversos , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos , Vitamina D/sangue , Vitamina D/uso terapêutico , Deficiência de Vitamina D/sangue , Deficiência de Vitamina D/tratamento farmacológico , Vitaminas/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
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).