The Evolving Practice of Hospital at Home in the United States.

Hospital at Home (HaH) provides hospital-level services in the home to eligible patients who would otherwise require facility-based hospitalization. In the last two decades, studies have shown that HaH can improve patient outcomes and satisfaction and reduce hospital readmissions. Improved technology and greater experience with the model have led to expansion in the scope of patients served and services provided by the model, but dissemination in the United States has been hampered by lack of insurance coverage until recently. HaH is likely at the tipping point for wide adoption in the United States. To realize its full benefits, HaH will need to continue volume expansion to achieve culture change in clinical practice as facilitated by increased insurance coverage, technological advancements, and improved workforce expertise. It is also essential that HaH programs maintain high-quality acute hospital care, ensure that their benefits can be accessed by hard-to-reach rural populations, and continue to advance health equity.

A Randomized Trial of a Multifactorial Strategy to Prevent Serious Fall Injuries.

BACKGROUND: Injuries from falls are major contributors to complications and death in older adults. Despite evidence from efficacy trials that many falls can be prevented, rates of falls resulting in injury have not declined. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifactorial intervention that included risk assessment and individualized plans, administered by specially trained nurses, to prevent fall injuries. A total of 86 primary care practices across 10 health care systems were randomly assigned to the intervention or to enhanced usual care (the control) (43 practices each). The participants were community-dwelling adults, 70 years of age or older, who were at increased risk for fall injuries. The primary outcome, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was the first serious fall injury, adjudicated with the use of participant report, electronic health records, and claims data. We hypothesized that the event rate would be lower by 20% in the intervention group than in the control group. RESULTS: The demographic and baseline characteristics of the participants were similar in the intervention group (2802 participants) and the control group (2649 participants); the mean age was 80 years, and 62.0% of the participants were women. The rate of a first adjudicated serious fall injury did not differ significantly between the groups, as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis (events per 100 person-years of follow-up, 4.9 in the intervention group and 5.3 in the control group; hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.06; P = 0.25). The rate of a first participant-reported fall injury was 25.6 events per 100 person-years of follow-up in the intervention group and 28.6 events per 100 person-years of follow-up in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.99; P = 0.004). The rates of hospitalization or death were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: A multifactorial intervention, administered by nurses, did not result in a significantly lower rate of a first adjudicated serious fall injury than enhanced usual care. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and others; STRIDE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02475850.).

Effects of a Rehabilitation-at-Home Program Compared to Post-acute Skilled Nursing Facility Care on Safety, Readmission, and Community Dwelling Status: A Matched Cohort Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Rehabilitation-at-Home (RaH), which provides high-frequency, multidisciplinary post-acute rehabilitative services in patients' homes. DESIGN: Comparative effectiveness analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Medicare Fee-For-Service patients who received RaH in a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Center Demonstration during 2016-2017 (N=173) or who received Medicare Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) care in 2016-2017 within the same geographic service area with similar inclusion and exclusion criteria (N=5535). METHODS: We propensity-matched RaH participants to a cohort of SNF patients using clinical and demographic characteristics with exact match on surgical and non-surgical hospitalizations. Outcomes included hospitalization within 30 days of post-acute admission, death within 30 days of post-acute discharge, length of stay, falls, use of antipsychotic medication, and discharge to community. RESULTS: The majority of RaH participants were older than or equal to 85 years (57.8%) and non-Hispanic white (72.2%) with mean hospital length of stay of 8.1 (SD 7.6) days. In propensity-matched analyses, 10.1% (95% CI: 0.5%, 19.8) and 4.2% (95% CI: 0.1%, 8.5%) fewer RaH participants experienced hospital readmission and death, respectively. RaH participants had, on average, 2.8 fewer days (95% CI 1.4, 4.3) of post-acute care; 11.4% (95% CI: 5.2%, 17.7%) fewer RaH participants experienced fall; and 25.8% (95% CI: 17.8%, 33.9%) more were discharged to the community. Use of antipsychotic medications was no different. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: RaH is a promising alternative to delivering SNF-level post-acute RaH. The program seems to be safe, readmissions are lower, and transition back to the community is improved.

Hospital-at-Home: Multistakeholder Considerations for Program Dissemination and Scale.

Policy Points Hospital-at-Home (HaH) is a home-based alternative for acute care that has expanded significantly under COVID-19 regulatory flexibilities. The post-pandemic policy agenda for HaH will require consideration of multistakeholder perspectives, including patient, caregiver, provider, clinical operations, technology, equity, legal, quality, and payer. Key policy challenges include reaching a consensus on program standards, clarifying caregivers' issues, creating sustainable reimbursement mechanisms, and mitigating potential equity concerns. Key policy prescriptions include creating a national surveillance system for quality and safety, clarifying legal standards for care in the home, and deploying payment reforms through value-based models.

Use of hospitals in the New York City Metropolitan Region, by race: how separate? How equal in resources and quality?

BACKGROUND: Although racial and ethnic minorities disproportionately use some hospitals, hospital-based racial and ethnic composition relative to geographic region and its association with quality indicators has not been systematically analyzed. METHODS: We used four race and ethnicity categories: non-Hispanic white (NHW), non-Hispanic black (NHB), Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander/Alaskan Native/American Indian (API/AIAN), as well as a combined non-NHW category, from the 2010 (latest year publicly available) Medicare Institutional Provider & Beneficiary Summary public use file for 84 hospitals in the New York City region. We assessed the relative distribution of race and ethnicity across hospitals grouped at different geographic levels (region, county, hospital referral region [HRR], or hospital service areas [HSA]) using the dissimilarity index. Hospital characteristics included quality star ratings, essential professional services and diagnostic/treatment equipment, bed size, total expenses, and patients with dual Medicare and Medicaid enrollment. We assessed Spearman's rank correlation between hospital-based racial and ethnic composition and quality/structural measures. RESULTS: Dissimilarity Index decreases from region (range 30.3-40.1%) to county (range 13.7-23.5%), HRR (range 10.5-27.5%), and HSA (range 12.0-16.9%) levels. Hospitals with larger non-NHW patients tended to have lower hospital ratings and higher proportions of dually-enrolled patients. They were also more likely to be safety net hospitals and non-federal governmental hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: In the NYC metropolitan region, there is considerable hospital-based racial and ethnic segregation of Medicare patients among non-NHW populations, extending previous research limited to NHB. Availability of data on racial and ethnic composition of hospitals should be made publicly available for researchers and consumers.

Association of Geographic Differences in Prevalence of Uncontrolled Chronic Conditions With Changes in Individuals' Likelihood of Uncontrolled Chronic Conditions.

Importance: The prevalence of leading risk factors for morbidity and mortality in the US significantly varies across regions, states, and neighborhoods, but the extent these differences are associated with a person's place of residence vs the characteristics of the people who live in different places remains unclear. Objective: To estimate the degree to which geographic differences in leading risk factors are associated with a person's place of residence by comparing trends in health outcomes among individuals who moved to different areas or did not move. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study estimated the association between the differences in the prevalence of uncontrolled chronic conditions across movers' destination and origin zip codes and changes in individuals' likelihood of uncontrolled chronic conditions after moving, adjusting for person-specific fixed effects, the duration of time since the move, and secular trends among movers and those who did not move. Electronic health records from the Veterans Health Administration were analyzed. The primary analysis included 5 342 207 individuals with at least 1 Veterans Health Administration outpatient encounter between 2008 and 2018 who moved zip codes exactly once or never moved. Exposures: The difference in the prevalence of uncontrolled chronic conditions between a person's origin zip code and destination zip code (excluding the individual mover's outcomes). Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of uncontrolled blood pressure (systolic blood pressure level >140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure level >90 mm Hg), uncontrolled diabetes (hemoglobin A1c level >8%), obesity (body mass index >30), and depressive symptoms (2-item Patient Health Questionnaire score ≥2) per quarter-year during the 3 years before and the 3 years after individuals moved. Results: The study population included 5 342 207 individuals (mean age, 57.6 [SD, 17.4] years, 93.9% men, 72.5% White individuals, and 12.7% Black individuals), of whom 1 095 608 moved exactly once and 4 246 599 never moved during the study period. Among the movers, the change after moving in the prevalence of uncontrolled blood pressure was 27.5% (95% CI, 23.8%-31.3%) of the between-area difference in the prevalence of uncontrolled blood pressure. Similarly, the change after moving in the prevalence of uncontrolled diabetes was 5.0% (95% CI, 2.7%-7.2%) of the between-area difference in the prevalence of uncontrolled diabetes; the change after moving in the prevalence of obesity was 3.1% (95% CI, 2.0%-4.2%) of the between-area difference in the prevalence of obesity; and the change after moving in the prevalence of depressive symptoms was 15.2% (95% CI, 13.1%-17.2%) of the between-area difference in the prevalence of depressive symptoms. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study of individuals receiving care at Veterans Health Administration facilities, geographic differences in prevalence were associated with a substantial percentage of the change in individuals' likelihood of poor blood pressure control or depressive symptoms, and a smaller percentage of the change in individuals' likelihood of poor diabetes control and obesity. Further research is needed to understand the source of these associations with a person's place of residence.

The effect of adapting Hospital at Home to facilitate implementation and sustainment on program drift or voltage drop.

BACKGROUND: Translating evidence-based interventions from study conditions to actual practice necessarily requires adaptation. We implemented an evidence-based Hospital at Home (HaH) intervention and evaluated whether adaptations could avoid diminished benefit from "voltage drop" (decreased benefit when interventions are applied under more heterogeneous conditions than existing in studies) or "program drift." (decreased benefit arising from deviations from study protocols). METHODS: Patients were enrolled in HaH over a 6-month pilot period followed by nine quarters of implementation activity. The program retained core components of the original evidence-based HaH model, but adaptations were made at inception and throughout the implementation. These adaptations were coded as to who made them, what was modified, for whom the adaptations were made, and the nature of the adaptations. We collected information on length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits, escalations to the hospital, and patient ratings of care. Outcomes were assessed by quarter of admission. Selected outcomes were tracked and fed back to the program leadership. We used logistic or linear regression with an independent variable included for the numerical quarter of enrollment after the initial 6-month pilot phase. Models controlled for season and for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Adaptations were made throughout the implementation period. The nature of adaptations was most commonly to add or to substitute new program elements. HaH services substituting for a hospital stay were received by 295 patients (a mean of 33, range 11-44, per quarter). A small effect of quarter from program inception was seen for escalations (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.18, p = 0.03), but no effect was observed for LOS (- 0.007 days/quarter; SE 0.02, p = 0.75), 30 day ED visit (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01, p = 0.09), 30-day readmission (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08, p = 0.99), or patient rating of overall hospital care (OR for highest overall rating 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05, p = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: We made adaptations to HaH at inception and over the course of implementation. Our findings indicate that adaptations to evidence-based programs may avoid diminished benefits due to potential 'program drift' or 'voltage drop.' TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable. This study is not a clinical trial by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) definition because it is an observational study "in which the assignment of the medical intervention is not at the discretion of the investigator."

TNF-α and sTNF-RII Are Associated with Pain Following Hip Fracture Surgery in Older Adults.

Objective: To explore whether plasma inflammatory mediators on postoperative day 3 (POD3) are associated with pain scores in older adults after hip fracture surgery. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, New York. Subjects: Forty patients age 60 years or older who presented with acute hip fracture at Mount Sinai Hospital between November 2011 and April 2013. Methods: Plasma levels of six inflammatory mediators of the nuclear factor kappa B pathway were measured using blood collected on POD3. Self-reported pain scores (i.e., pain with resting, walking, and transferring) were assessed at baseline (prefracture) and on POD3. Linear regression models using log-transformed data were performed to determine associations between inflammatory mediators and postoperative pain. Results: Interleukin 18 (IL-18) was positively associated with POD3 resting pain score in the unadjusted model (ß = 0.66, P = 0.03). Tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) and soluble TNF receptor II (sTNF-RII) were positively associated with POD3 resting pain score in the adjusted model (ß = 0.99, P = 0.03, and ß = 0.86, P = 0.04, respectively). Moreover, TNF-α was positively associated with POD3 walking pain score in the adjusted model (ß = 1.59, P = 0.05). Pain with transferring was not associated with these inflammatory mediators. Conclusions: These findings suggest that TNF-α and its receptors may influence pain following hip fracture. Further study of the TNF-α pathway may inform future clinical applications that monitor and treat pain in the vulnerable elderly who are unable to accurately report pain.

Developing Recommendations for Evidence-Based Clinical Preventive Services for Diverse Populations: Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) summarizes the principles and considerations that guide development of its recommendations for diverse U.S. populations. It uses these principles through each step in the evidence-based guideline process: developing the research plan, conducting the evidence review, developing the recommendation, and communicating to guideline users. Three recent recommendations provide examples of how the USPSTF has used these principles: the 2015 recommendation on screening for abnormal blood glucose and type 2 diabetes; the 2016 recommendation on screening for breast cancer; and the recommendation on screening for prostate cancer, which is currently in progress. A more comprehensive list of recommendations that includes considerations for specific populations is also provided.

Screening for Prostate Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: In the United States, the lifetime risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer is approximately 13%, and the lifetime risk of dying of prostate cancer is 2.5%. The median age of death from prostate cancer is 80 years. Many men with prostate cancer never experience symptoms and, without screening, would never know they have the disease. African American men and men with a family history of prostate cancer have an increased risk of prostate cancer compared with other men. Objective: To update the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer. Evidence Review: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer and subsequent treatment of screen-detected prostate cancer. The USPSTF also commissioned a review of existing decision analysis models and the overdiagnosis rate of PSA-based screening. The reviews also examined the benefits and harms of PSA-based screening in patient subpopulations at higher risk of prostate cancer, including older men, African American men, and men with a family history of prostate cancer. Findings: Adequate evidence from randomized clinical trials shows that PSA-based screening programs in men aged 55 to 69 years may prevent approximately 1.3 deaths from prostate cancer over approximately 13 years per 1000 men screened. Screening programs may also prevent approximately 3 cases of metastatic prostate cancer per 1000 men screened. Potential harms of screening include frequent false-positive results and psychological harms. Harms of prostate cancer treatment include erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and bowel symptoms. About 1 in 5 men who undergo radical prostatectomy develop long-term urinary incontinence, and 2 in 3 men will experience long-term erectile dysfunction. Adequate evidence shows that the harms of screening in men older than 70 years are at least moderate and greater than in younger men because of increased risk of false-positive results, diagnostic harms from biopsies, and harms from treatment. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the net benefit of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men aged 55 to 69 years is small for some men. How each man weighs specific benefits and harms will determine whether the overall net benefit is small. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the potential benefits of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older do not outweigh the expected harms. Conclusions and Recommendation: For men aged 55 to 69 years, the decision to undergo periodic PSA-based screening for prostate cancer should be an individual one and should include discussion of the potential benefits and harms of screening with their clinician. Screening offers a small potential benefit of reducing the chance of death from prostate cancer in some men. However, many men will experience potential harms of screening, including false-positive results that require additional testing and possible prostate biopsy; overdiagnosis and overtreatment; and treatment complications, such as incontinence and erectile dysfunction. In determining whether this service is appropriate in individual cases, patients and clinicians should consider the balance of benefits and harms on the basis of family history, race/ethnicity, comorbid medical conditions, patient values about the benefits and harms of screening and treatment-specific outcomes, and other health needs. Clinicians should not screen men who do not express a preference for screening. (C recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older. (D recommendation).

Screening for Depression in Children and Adolescents: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

DESCRIPTION: Update of the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for major depressive disorder (MDD) in children and adolescents. METHODS: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening; the accuracy of primary care-feasible screening tests; and the benefits and harms of treatment with psychotherapy, medications, and collaborative care models in patients aged 7 to 18 years. POPULATION: This recommendation applies to children and adolescents aged 18 years or younger who do not have a diagnosis of MDD. RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF recommends screening for MDD in adolescents aged 12 to 18 years. Screening should be implemented with adequate systems in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for MDD in children aged 11 years or younger. (I statement).

Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

DESCRIPTION: Update of the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for breast cancer. METHODS: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the following: effectiveness of breast cancer screening in reducing breast cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, as well as the incidence of advanced breast cancer and treatment-related morbidity; harms of breast cancer screening; test performance characteristics of digital breast tomosynthesis as a primary screening strategy; and adjunctive screening in women with increased breast density. In addition, the USPSTF reviewed comparative decision models on optimal starting and stopping ages and intervals for screening mammography; how breast density, breast cancer risk, and comorbidity level affect the balance of benefit and harms of screening mammography; and the number of radiation-induced breast cancer cases and deaths associated with different screening mammography strategies over the course of a woman's lifetime. POPULATION: This recommendation applies to asymptomatic women aged 40 years or older who do not have preexisting breast cancer or a previously diagnosed high-risk breast lesion and who are not at high risk for breast cancer because of a known underlying genetic mutation (such as a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation or other familial breast cancer syndrome) or a history of chest radiation at a young age. RECOMMENDATIONS: The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74 years. (B recommendation) The decision to start screening mammography in women prior to age 50 years should be an individual one. Women who place a higher value on the potential benefit than the potential harms may choose to begin biennial screening between the ages of 40 and 49 years. (C recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women aged 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) as a primary screening method for breast cancer. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of adjunctive screening for breast cancer using breast ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), DBT, or other methods in women identified to have dense breasts on an otherwise negative screening mammogram. (I statement).

Use of Decision Models in the Development of Evidence-Based Clinical Preventive Services Recommendations: Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) develops evidence-based recommendations about preventive care based on comprehensive systematic reviews of the best available evidence. Decision models provide a complementary, quantitative approach to support the USPSTF as it deliberates about the evidence and develops recommendations for clinical and policy use. This article describes the rationale for using modeling, an approach to selecting topics for modeling, and how modeling may inform recommendations about clinical preventive services. Decision modeling is useful when clinical questions remain about how to target an empirically established clinical preventive service at the individual or program level or when complex determinations of magnitude of net benefit, overall or among important subpopulations, are required. Before deciding whether to use decision modeling, the USPSTF assesses whether the benefits and harms of the preventive service have been established empirically, assesses whether there are key issues about applicability or implementation that modeling could address, and then defines the decision problem and key questions to address through modeling. Decision analyses conducted for the USPSTF are expected to follow best practices for modeling. For chosen topics, the USPSTF assesses the strengths and limitations of the systematically reviewed evidence and the modeling analyses and integrates the results of each to make preventive service recommendations.

Screening for Gynecologic Conditions With Pelvic Examination: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Many conditions that can affect women's health are often evaluated through pelvic examination. Although the pelvic examination is a common part of the physical examination, it is unclear whether performing screening pelvic examinations in asymptomatic women has a significant effect on disease morbidity and mortality. Objective: To issue a new US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for gynecologic conditions with pelvic examination for conditions other than cervical cancer, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, for which the USPSTF has already made specific recommendations. Evidence Review: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the accuracy, benefits, and potential harms of performing screening pelvic examinations in asymptomatic, nonpregnant adult women 18 years and older who are not at increased risk for any specific gynecologic condition. Findings: Overall, the USPSTF found inadequate evidence on screening pelvic examinations for the early detection and treatment of a range of gynecologic conditions in asymptomatic, nonpregnant adult women. Conclusions and Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of performing screening pelvic examinations in asymptomatic, nonpregnant adult women. (I statement) This statement does not apply to specific disorders for which the USPSTF already recommends screening (ie, screening for cervical cancer with a Papanicolaou smear, screening for gonorrhea and chlamydia).

Screening for Thyroid Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

IMPORTANCE: The incidence of thyroid cancer detection has increased by 4.5% per year over the last 10 years, faster than for any other cancer, but without a corresponding change in the mortality rate. In 2013, the incidence rate of thyroid cancer in the United States was 15.3 cases per 100 000 persons. Most cases of thyroid cancer have a good prognosis; the 5-year survival rate for thyroid cancer overall is 98.1%. OBJECTIVE: To update the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for thyroid cancer. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for thyroid cancer in asymptomatic adults, the diagnostic accuracy of screening (including neck palpation and ultrasound), and the benefits and harms of treatment of screen-detected thyroid cancer. FINDINGS: The USPSTF found inadequate direct evidence on the benefits of screening but determined that the magnitude of the overall benefits of screening and treatment can be bounded as no greater than small, given the relative rarity of thyroid cancer, the apparent lack of difference in outcomes between patients who are treated vs monitored (for the most common tumor types), and observational evidence showing no change in mortality over time after introduction of a mass screening program. The USPSTF found inadequate direct evidence on the harms of screening but determined that the overall magnitude of the harms of screening and treatment can be bounded as at least moderate, given adequate evidence of harms of treatment and indirect evidence that overdiagnosis and overtreatment are likely to be substantial with population-based screening. The USPSTF therefore determined that the net benefit of screening for thyroid cancer is negative. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF recommends against screening for thyroid cancer in asymptomatic adults. (D recommendation).

Screening for Abnormal Blood Glucose and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

DESCRIPTION: Update of the 2008 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for diabetes in asymptomatic adults. METHODS: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on screening for impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, and type 2 diabetes in asymptomatic, nonpregnant adults who are at average or high risk for diabetes and its complications. POPULATION: This recommendation applies to adults aged 40 to 70 years seen in primary care settings who do not have symptoms of diabetes and are overweight or obese. RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF recommends screening for abnormal blood glucose as part of cardiovascular risk assessment in adults aged 40 to 70 years who are overweight or obese. Clinicians should offer or refer patients with abnormal blood glucose to intensive behavioral counseling interventions to promote a healthful diet and physical activity. (B recommendation).

Screening for Iron Deficiency Anemia and Iron Supplementation in Pregnant Women to Improve Maternal Health and Birth Outcomes: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

DESCRIPTION: Update of the 2006 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for iron deficiency anemia. METHODS: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the association between change in iron status as a result of intervention (oral supplementation or treatment) in pregnant women and adolescents and improvement in maternal and infant health outcomes. POPULATION: This recommendation applies to pregnant women and adolescents living in the United States who do not have symptoms of iron deficiency anemia. It does not address pregnant women who are malnourished, have symptoms of iron deficiency anemia, or have special hematologic conditions or nutritional needs that may increase their need for iron. RECOMMENDATIONS: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for iron deficiency anemia in pregnant women to prevent adverse maternal health and birth outcomes. (I statement). The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine iron supplementation for pregnant women to prevent adverse maternal health and birth outcomes. (I statement).

Behavioral and Pharmacotherapy Interventions for Tobacco Smoking Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

DESCRIPTION: Update of the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on counseling and interventions to prevent tobacco use and tobacco-related disease in adults, including pregnant women. METHODS: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on interventions for tobacco smoking cessation that are relevant to primary care (behavioral interventions, pharmacotherapy, and complementary or alternative therapy) in adults, including pregnant women. POPULATION: This recommendation applies to adults aged 18 years or older, including pregnant women. RECOMMENDATIONS: The USPSTF recommends that clinicians ask all adults about tobacco use, advise them to stop using tobacco, and provide behavioral interventions and U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved pharmacotherapy for cessation to adults who use tobacco. (A recommendation). The USPSTF recommends that clinicians ask all pregnant women about tobacco use, advise them to stop using tobacco, and provide behavioral interventions for cessation to pregnant women 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 women. (I statement). The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to recommend electronic nicotine delivery systems for tobacco cessation in adults, including pregnant women. The USPSTF recommends that clinicians direct patients who smoke tobacco to other cessation interventions with established effectiveness and safety (previously stated). (I statement).

Screening for high blood pressure in adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

DESCRIPTION: Update of the 2007 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) reaffirmation recommendation statement on screening for high blood pressure in adults. METHODS: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of different methods for confirming a diagnosis of hypertension after initial screening and the optimal rescreening interval for diagnosing hypertension. POPULATION: This recommendation applies to adults aged 18 years or older without known hypertension. RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF recommends screening for high blood pressure in adults aged 18 years or older. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends obtaining measurements outside of the clinical setting for diagnostic confirmation before starting treatment.