Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 117
Filter
Add more filters

Country/Region as subject
Publication year range
1.
Ann Fam Med ; (20 Suppl 1)2022 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36944058

ABSTRACT

Context: Evidence on specific interventions to improve diabetes control in primary care is available, but this evidence is not always well-implemented. The concept of "mindlines" has been proposed to explain how clinicians integrate evidence using specifics of their practices and patients to produce knowledge-in-practice-in-context. Objective: We designed a pilot study to operationalize the "mindlines" concept by creating a venue for clinician-staff interaction concerning evidence. We attempted to hold "mindlines"-producing conversations in primary care practices about evidence to improve diabetes control. Study design and Analysis: Qualitative analysis of recordings of facilitated practice-wide conversations and field notes. Setting: 4 primary care practices in a health system in southwest Virginia. Population Studied: Clinicians, nurses, medical assistants, and clerical staff in primary care practices. Intervention: In each of four primary care practices in a single health system, we held a practice-wide conversation about a simple diabetes intervention model over a provided lunch. We attempted to keep the conversation relatively informal and encouraged participation from all. We recorded the conversations and took field notes. Outcome Measures: We analyzed the data using a framework adapted from the "mindlines" research and noted additional emerging themes. We also analyzed practice average proportions of controlled glycated hemoglobin levels in diabetic patients. Results: While most of the conversation concerned barriers to implementation of the simple diabetes intervention model, we noted examples of practices adopting and adapting the evidence to suit their own needs and context, consistent with the fundamentals of the "mindlines" model. Performance metrics regarding diabetes control for the four practices improved after the intervention. Conclusions: It appears that the type of conversations that "mindlines" research describes can be generated with facilitation around evidence, but further research is required to better understand the limitations and impact of this intervention.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus , Humans , Pilot Projects , Diabetes Mellitus/prevention & control , Qualitative Research , Allied Health Personnel , Benchmarking
2.
Ann Fam Med ; 20(Suppl 1)2022 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38270769

ABSTRACT

Context: In the U.S., provision of LVC is prevalent (up to 20% of total health services), costly ($350 billion annually), and associated with patient harm. Concern about a negative impact on the patient-clinician relationship has been cited by primary care clinicians as a barrier to reducing LVC. Study Design: Mixed-methods study. Participants completed the Patient-Doctor Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ-9) after reading one of three vignettes about a clinician declining to provide a requested LVC service (antibiotics for sinusitis, screening EKG, or screening vitamin D test) or a comparison vignette. A different sample of participants was asked to imagine that their own clinician did not order requested antibiotics or screening EKG and then to respond to structured interview questions about satisfaction and trust. Setting: Primary care patients of a southwest Virginia health system. Population: Adults (n= 232 questionnaire/n= 24 interview). Outcome Measures: Participant demographics data, PDRQ-9 score for each vignette (higher score = greater relationship integrity), and thematic analysis of interview responses. Results: Among questionnaire participants, a lower PDRQ-9 score was associated with the vignette about not providing LVC vitamin D screening (31.2) compared with antibiotics (38.9), EKG screening (37.5), and the comparison vignette (36.4) (p<0.05). There was a statistically significant, but weak, correlation between education and PDRQ-9 score (r=0.2, p<0.01). More than half of interviewees believed that their satisfaction and trust would not be negatively impacted by not receiving the LVC service, citing the strength of their relationship with their clinician and faith in their guidance. Some even felt that not providing the service would increase their satisfaction and trust. Participants who believed their satisfaction and trust may be impacted seemed to recognize the complexity of the scenario, discussing medical necessity, potential harm, insurance, and the option to go elsewhere (ex: urgent care or a new doctor). However, most emphasized that negative impacts could be mitigated if the clinician listened to them, spent time with them, and offered understandable advice. Conclusions: Findings emphasize prioritization of the patient-clinician relationship in LVC de-implementation interventions and suggest minimal impact of such interventions on the patient-clinician relationship. Evidence of service-specific differences was observed.

3.
Ann Fam Med ; (20 Suppl 1)2022 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36944042

ABSTRACT

Context: At the mid-point of the COVID-19 pandemic, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2 was difficult to obtain and took several days to return a result. Our health system wished to explore the use of the Quidel Sofia™ antigen test to diagnose COVID-19 in our primary care clinics, but the test was approved for emergency use authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration with only 250 test subjects. In addition, because it was important to avoid aerosol generating procedures in primary care clinics, it was necessary to test the diagnostic performance of the antigen test using mid-turbinate (MT) swabs rather than the approved nasopharyngeal (NP) swab technique. Objective: To assess the diagnostic test characteristics of a SARS-CoV-2 antigen test performed using mid-turbinate nasal swabs compared with the presumed reference standard PCR test by NP swab. Study Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting or Dataset: Outpatient. Population studied: Adults with symptoms consistent with mild-moderate COVID-19. We attempted to recruit 800 subjects to provide statistical assurance that the test sensitivity was at least 90%. Intervention/Instrument: After informed consent, subjects underwent MT nasal swab for antigen testing followed by NP swabbing for PCR testing. Outcome Measures: Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and likelihood ratios, all with associated 95% confidence intervals. Results: Due to recruitment difficulty (subject reluctance and staffing issues at the testing centers), we recruited only 117 subjects. Sensitivity was 0.750 (95% CI 0.566, 0.885), and specificity was 0.988 (95% CI 0.936, 1.000). Positive Predictive Value was 0.960 (95% CI 0.796, 0.999) and Negative Predictive Value was 0.913 (95% CI 0.836, 0.962). The likelihood ratio for a positive test was 63.75 (95% CI 8.99, 451.97) and the likelihood ratio for a negative test was 0.25 (95% CI 0.14, 0.46). Conclusions: This antigen test for SARS-CoV-2 was of reasonable clinical utility in a low prevalence environment but concerns about the actual prevalence of COVID-19 and the ramifications of false negatives limited its use. Difficulty recruiting subjects and the resultant delay in the results made it impossible to implement this antigen testing in primary care practices, but it is hoped that these data will contribute to the accumulation of evidence about diagnostic testing for COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Testing , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Turbinates , Sensitivity and Specificity
4.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 22(1): 37, 2022 Jan 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34991573

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The importance of reducing low-value care (LVC) is increasingly recognized, but the impact of de-implementation on the patient-clinician relationship is not well understood. This mixed-methods study explored the impact of LVC de-implementation on the patient-clinician relationship. METHODS: Adult primary care patients from a large Virginia health system volunteered to participate in a survey (n = 232) or interview (n = 24). Participants completed the Patient-Doctor Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ-9) after reading a vignette about a clinician declining to provide a low-value service: antibiotics for acute sinusitis (LVC-antibiotics); screening EKG (LVC-EKG); screening vitamin D test (LVC-vitamin D); or an alternate vignette about a high-value service, and imagining that their own primary care clinician had acted in the same manner. A different sample of participants was asked to imagine that their own primary care clinician did not order LVC-antibiotics or LVC-EKG and then respond to semi-structured interview questions. Outcomes data included participant demographics, PDRQ-9 scores (higher score = greater relationship integrity), and content analysis of transcribed interviews. Differences in PDRQ-9 scores were analyzed using one-way ANOVA. Data were integrated for analysis and interpretation. RESULTS: Although participants generally agreed with the vignette narrative (not providing LVC), many demonstrated difficulty comprehending the broad concept of LVC and potential harms. The topic triggered memories of negative experiences with healthcare (typically poor-quality care, not necessarily LVC). The most common recommendation for reducing LVC was for patients to take greater responsibility for their own health. Most participants believed that their relationship with their clinician would not be negatively impacted by denial of LVC because they trusted their clinician's guidance. Participants emphasized that trusted clinicians are those who listen to them, spend time with them, and offer understandable advice. Some felt that not providing LVC would actually increase their trust in their clinician. Similar PDRQ-9 scores were observed for LVC-antibiotics (38.9), LVC-EKG (37.5), and the alternate vignette (36.4), but LVC-vitamin D was associated with a significantly lower score (31.2) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this vignette-based study, we observed minimal impact of LVC de-implementation on the patient-clinician relationship, although service-specific differences surfaced. Further situation-based research is needed to confirm study findings.


Subject(s)
Low-Value Care , Physician-Patient Relations , Adult , Humans , Primary Health Care , Quality of Health Care , Surveys and Questionnaires
5.
JAMA ; 327(4): 360-367, 2022 01 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35076659

ABSTRACT

Importance: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia. The prevalence of AF increases with age, from less than 0.2% in adults younger than 55 years to about 10% in those 85 years or older, with a higher prevalence in men than in women. It is uncertain whether the prevalence of AF differs by race and ethnicity. Atrial fibrillation is a major risk factor for ischemic stroke and is associated with a substantial increase in the risk of stroke. Approximately 20% of patients who have a stroke associated with AF are first diagnosed with AF at the time of the stroke or shortly thereafter. Objective: To update its 2018 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on the benefits and harms of screening for AF in older adults, the accuracy of screening tests, the effectiveness of screening tests to detect previously undiagnosed AF compared with usual care, and the benefits and harms of anticoagulant therapy for the treatment of screen-detected AF in older adults. Population: Adults 50 years or older without a diagnosis or symptoms of AF and without a history of transient ischemic attack or stroke. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that evidence is lacking, and the balance of benefits and harms of screening for AF 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 AF. (I statement).


Subject(s)
Atrial Fibrillation/diagnosis , Mass Screening/standards , Aged , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Asymptomatic Diseases , Atrial Fibrillation/therapy , Electrocardiography/standards , Humans , Ischemic Attack, Transient , Mass Screening/adverse effects , Middle Aged , Stroke/prevention & control
6.
JAMA ; 327(21): 2123-2128, 2022 06 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35608838

ABSTRACT

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).


Subject(s)
Vision Disorders , Vision Screening , Activities of Daily Living , Advisory Committees , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Primary Health Care/methods , Quality of Life , Risk Assessment , Vision Disorders/diagnosis , Vision Disorders/etiology , Vision Disorders/therapy , Vision Screening/methods , Visual Acuity
7.
JAMA ; 327(20): 1992-1997, 2022 05 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35608574

ABSTRACT

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).


Subject(s)
Glaucoma, Open-Angle , Mass Screening , Adult , Advisory Committees , Blindness , Glaucoma, Open-Angle/diagnosis , Glaucoma, Open-Angle/therapy , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Preventive Health Services , Risk Assessment , United States
8.
BMC Fam Pract ; 22(1): 177, 2021 09 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34488641

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Evidence on specific interventions to improve diabetes control in primary care is available, but this evidence is not always well-implemented. The concept of "mindlines" has been proposed to explain how clinicians integrate evidence using specifics of their practices and patients to produce knowledge-in-practice-in-context. The goal of this pilot study was to operationalize this concept by creating a venue for clinician-staff interaction concerning evidence. The research team attempted to hold "mindlines"-producing conversations in primary care practices about evidence to improve diabetes control. METHODS: Each of four primary care practices in a single health system held practice-wide conversations about a simple diabetes intervention model over a provided lunch. The conversations were relatively informal and encouraged participation from all. The research team recorded the conversations and took field notes. The team analyzed the data using a framework adapted from the "mindlines" research and noted additional emergent themes. RESULTS: While most of the conversation concerned barriers to implementation of the simple diabetes intervention model, there were examples of practices adopting and adapting the evidence to suit their own needs and context. Performance metrics regarding diabetes control for the four practices improved after the intervention. CONCLUSION: It appears that the type of conversations that "mindlines" research describes can be generated with facilitation around evidence, but further research is required to better understand the limitations and impact of this intervention.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus , Primary Health Care , Diabetes Mellitus/prevention & control , Humans , Knowledge , Pilot Projects , Qualitative Research
9.
JAMA ; 325(5): 476-481, 2021 02 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33528542

ABSTRACT

Importance: Carotid artery stenosis is atherosclerotic disease that affects extracranial carotid arteries. Asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis refers to stenosis in persons without a history of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or other neurologic symptoms referable to the carotid arteries. The prevalence of asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis is low in the general population but increases with age. Objective: To determine if its 2014 recommendation should be reaffirmed, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a reaffirmation evidence review. The reaffirmation update focused on the targeted key questions on the potential benefits and harms of screening and interventions, including revascularization procedures designed to improve carotid artery blood flow, in persons with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. Population: This recommendation statement applies to adults without a history of transient ischemic attack, stroke, or other neurologic signs or symptoms referable to the carotid arteries. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF found no new substantial evidence that could change its recommendation and therefore concludes with moderate certainty that the harms of screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis outweigh the benefits. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends against screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis in the general adult population. (D recommendation).


Subject(s)
Asymptomatic Diseases , Carotid Arteries/diagnostic imaging , Carotid Stenosis/diagnostic imaging , Mass Screening , Stroke/prevention & control , Adult , Carotid Stenosis/drug therapy , Carotid Stenosis/surgery , Computed Tomography Angiography , False Positive Reactions , Humans , Magnetic Resonance Angiography , Mass Screening/adverse effects , Risk Assessment , Ultrasonography
10.
JAMA ; 325(3): 265-279, 2021 Jan 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33464343

ABSTRACT

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).


Subject(s)
Behavior Therapy , Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems , Smoking Cessation Agents/therapeutic use , Smoking Cessation/methods , Tobacco Use Disorder/therapy , Adult , Combined Modality Therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Pregnancy , Primary Health Care , Smoking Cessation Agents/adverse effects , Tobacco Use Cessation/methods , Tobacco Use Cessation Devices/adverse effects , Tobacco Use Disorder/drug therapy
11.
JAMA ; 325(14): 1436-1442, 2021 04 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33847711

ABSTRACT

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).


Subject(s)
Mass Screening , Vitamin D Deficiency/diagnosis , Vitamin D/analogs & derivatives , Adult , Asymptomatic Diseases , Humans , Mass Screening/adverse effects , Mass Screening/methods , Vitamin D/blood , Vitamin D/therapeutic use , Vitamin D Deficiency/blood , Vitamin D Deficiency/drug therapy , Vitamins/therapeutic use
12.
JAMA ; 325(12): 1196-1201, 2021 03 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33755083

ABSTRACT

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).


Subject(s)
Hearing Loss, Sensorineural/diagnosis , Mass Screening , Aged , Hearing Aids , Hearing Loss/diagnosis , Hearing Loss, Sensorineural/rehabilitation , Hearing Tests/adverse effects , Humans , Mass Screening/adverse effects , Middle Aged , Quality of Life , Risk Assessment , Sensitivity and Specificity
13.
BMC Fam Pract ; 21(1): 93, 2020 05 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32434467

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Unhealthy alcohol use is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Evidence demonstrates that screening for unhealthy alcohol use and providing persons engaged in risky drinking with brief behavioral and counseling interventions improves health outcomes, collectively termed screening and brief interventions. Medication assisted therapy (MAT) is another effective method for treatment of moderate or severe alcohol use disorder. Yet, primary care clinicians are not regularly screening for or treating unhealthy alcohol use. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are initiating a clinic-level randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate how primary care clinicians can impact unhealthy alcohol use through screening, counseling, and MAT. One hundred and 25 primary care practices in the Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network (ACORN) will be engaged; each will receive practice facilitation to promote screening, counseling, and MAT either at the beginning of the trial or at a 6-month control period start date. For each practice, the intervention includes provision of a practice facilitator, learning collaboratives with three practice champions, and clinic-wide information sessions. Clinics will be enrolled for 6-12 months. After completion of the intervention, we will conduct a mixed methods analysis to identify changes in screening rates, increase in provision of brief counseling and interventions as well as MAT, and the reduction of alcohol intake for patients after practices receive practice facilitation. DISCUSSION: This study offers a systematic process for dissemination and implementation of the evidence-based practice of screening, counseling, and treatment for unhealthy alcohol use. Practices will be asked to implement a process for screening, counseling, and treatment based on their practice characteristics, patient population, and workflow. We propose practice facilitation as a robust and feasible intervention to assist in making changes within the practice. We believe that the process can be replicated and used in a broad range of clinical settings; we anticipate this will be supported by our evaluation of this approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04248023, Registered 5 February 2020.


Subject(s)
Alcohol-Related Disorders , Alcoholism , Counseling/organization & administration , Mass Screening/organization & administration , Medication Therapy Management/organization & administration , Preventive Health Services , Primary Health Care/methods , Adult , Alcohol-Related Disorders/etiology , Alcohol-Related Disorders/prevention & control , Alcoholism/complications , Alcoholism/diagnosis , Alcoholism/drug therapy , Alcoholism/psychology , Evidence-Based Practice/methods , Female , Health Risk Behaviors , Humans , Male , Physician's Role , Physicians, Family , Preventive Health Services/methods , Preventive Health Services/organization & administration , Quality Improvement
14.
JAMA ; 324(18): 1878-1883, 2020 Nov 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33170248

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Prevalence of hypertension (both primary and secondary) in children and adolescents in the US ranges from 3% to 4%. Primary hypertension in children and adolescents occurs primarily in children older than 13 years and has no known cause but is associated with several risk factors, including family history and higher body mass index. Secondary hypertension occurs primarily in younger children and is most commonly caused by genetic disorders, renal disease, endocrine disorders, or cardiovascular abnormalities. OBJECTIVE: To update its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review of the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening, test accuracy, the effectiveness and harms of treatment, and the association between hypertension and markers of cardiovascular disease in childhood and adulthood. POPULATION: This recommendation statement applies to children and adolescents aged 3 to 18 years not known to have hypertension or who are asymptomatic. EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The USPSTF concludes that the evidence to support screening for high blood pressure in children and adolescents is insufficient and that the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for high blood pressure in children and adolescents. (I statement).


Subject(s)
Hypertension/diagnosis , Mass Screening , Adolescent , Blood Pressure Determination/instrumentation , Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control , Child , Child, Preschool , False Positive Reactions , Female , Humans , Hypertension/therapy , Male , Mass Screening/adverse effects , Preventive Health Services , Reference Values
15.
JAMA ; 324(7): 674-681, 2020 08 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32809008

ABSTRACT

Importance: Approximately 20 million new cases of bacterial or viral sexually transmitted infections (STIs) occur each year in the US, and about one-half of these cases occur in persons aged 15 to 24 years. Rates of chlamydial, gonococcal, and syphilis infection continue to increase in all regions. Sexually transmitted infections are frequently asymptomatic, which may delay diagnosis and treatment and lead persons to unknowingly transmit STIs to others. Serious consequences of STIs include pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, cancer, and AIDS. Objective: To update its 2014 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a review of the evidence on the benefits and harms of behavioral counseling interventions for preventing STI acquisition. Population: This recommendation statement applies to all sexually active adolescents and to adults at increased risk for STIs. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that behavioral counseling interventions reduce the likelihood of acquiring STIs in sexually active adolescents and in adults at increased risk, including for example, those who have a current STI, do not use condoms, or have multiple partners, resulting in a moderate net benefit. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends behavioral counseling for all sexually active adolescents and for adults at increased risk for STIs. (B recommendation).


Subject(s)
Behavior Therapy , Counseling , Sexual Behavior , Sexually Transmitted Diseases/prevention & control , Adolescent , Adult , Behavior Therapy/methods , Counseling/methods , Female , Humans , Male , Primary Health Care , Risk Reduction Behavior
16.
JAMA ; 324(23): 2415-2422, 2020 12 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33320230

ABSTRACT

Importance: An estimated 862 000 persons in the US are living with chronic infection with hepatitis B virus (HBV). Persons born in regions with a prevalence of HBV infection of 2% or greater, such as countries in Africa and Asia, the Pacific Islands, and parts of South America, often become infected at birth and account for up to 95% of newly reported chronic infections in the US. Other high-prevalence populations include persons who inject drugs; men who have sex with men; persons with HIV infection; and sex partners, needle-sharing contacts, and household contacts of persons with chronic HBV infection. Up to 60% of HBV-infected persons are unaware of their infection, and many remain asymptomatic until onset of cirrhosis or end-stage liver disease. Objective: To update its 2014 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review of new randomized clinical trials and cohort studies published from 2014 to August 2019 that evaluated the benefits and harms of screening and antiviral therapy for preventing intermediate outcomes or health outcomes and the association between improvements in intermediate outcomes and health outcomes. New key questions focused on the yield of alternative HBV screening strategies and the accuracy of tools to identify persons at increased risk. Population: This recommendation statement applies to asymptomatic, nonpregnant adolescents and adults at increased risk for HBV infection, including those who were vaccinated before being screened for HBV infection. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for HBV infection in adolescents and adults at increased risk for infection has moderate net benefit. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for HBV infection in adolescents and adults at increased risk for infection. (B recommendation).


Subject(s)
Hepatitis B Surface Antigens/blood , Hepatitis B virus , Hepatitis B, Chronic/diagnosis , Mass Screening/standards , Adolescent , Adult , Emigrants and Immigrants , Hepatitis B Vaccines , Hepatitis B virus/immunology , Humans , Mass Screening/adverse effects , Risk Factors , United States
17.
JAMA ; 324(20): 2069-2075, 2020 Nov 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33231670

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death in the US. Known modifiable risk factors for CVD include smoking, overweight and obesity, diabetes, elevated blood pressure or hypertension, dyslipidemia, lack of physical activity, and unhealthy diet. Adults who adhere to national guidelines for a healthy diet and physical activity have lower cardiovascular morbidity and mortality than those who do not. All persons, regardless of their CVD risk status, benefit from healthy eating behaviors and appropriate physical activity. OBJECTIVE: To update its 2014 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review of the evidence on behavioral counseling to promote a healthy diet and physical activity for CVD prevention in adults with cardiovascular risk factors. POPULATION: This recommendation statement applies to adults 18 years or older with known hypertension or elevated blood pressure, those with dyslipidemia, or those who have mixed or multiple risk factors such as metabolic syndrome or an estimated 10-year CVD risk of 7.5% or greater. Adults with other known modifiable cardiovascular risk factors such as abnormal blood glucose levels, obesity, and smoking are not included in this recommendation. EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that behavioral counseling interventions have a moderate net benefit on CVD risk in adults at increased risk for CVD. RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF recommends offering or referring adults with CVD risk factors to behavioral counseling interventions to promote a healthy diet and physical activity. (B recommendation).


Subject(s)
Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control , Counseling , Diet, Healthy , Exercise , Health Behavior , Adult , Dyslipidemias , Heart Disease Risk Factors , Humans , Hypertension
18.
JAMA ; 323(16): 1590-1598, 2020 04 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32343336

ABSTRACT

Importance: Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the US. An estimated annual 480 000 deaths are attributable to tobacco use in adults, including from secondhand smoke. It is estimated that every day about 1600 youth aged 12 to 17 years smoke their first cigarette and that about 5.6 million adolescents alive today will die prematurely from a smoking-related illness. Although conventional cigarette use has gradually declined among children in the US since the late 1990s, tobacco use via electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) is quickly rising and is now more common among youth than cigarette smoking. e-Cigarette products usually contain nicotine, which is addictive, raising concerns about e-cigarette use and nicotine addiction in children. Exposure to nicotine during adolescence can harm the developing brain, which may affect brain function and cognition, attention, and mood; thus, minimizing nicotine exposure from any tobacco product in youth is important. Objective: To update its 2013 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review of the evidence on the benefits and harms of primary care interventions for tobacco use prevention and cessation in children and adolescents. The current systematic review newly included e-cigarettes as a tobacco product. Population: This recommendation applies to school-aged children and adolescents younger than 18 years. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that primary care-feasible behavioral interventions, including education or brief counseling, to prevent tobacco use in school-aged children and adolescents have a moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that there is insufficient evidence to determine the balance of benefits and harms of primary care interventions for tobacco cessation among school-aged children and adolescents who already smoke, because of a lack of adequately powered studies on behavioral counseling interventions and a lack of studies on medications. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians provide interventions, including education or brief counseling, to prevent initiation of tobacco use among school-aged children and adolescents. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of primary care-feasible interventions for the cessation of tobacco use among school-aged children and adolescents. (I statement).


Subject(s)
Behavior Therapy/methods , Counseling , Patient Education as Topic , Primary Health Care , Smoking Cessation/methods , Smoking Prevention/methods , Tobacco Use/prevention & control , Adolescent , Child , Humans , Vaping/prevention & control , Young Adult
19.
JAMA ; 323(22): 2301-2309, 2020 Jun 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32515821

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: An estimated 12% of adults 18 years or older and 8% of adolescents aged 12 to 17 years report unhealthy use of prescription or illegal drugs in the US. OBJECTIVE: To update its 2008 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned reviews of the evidence on screening by asking questions about drug use and interventions for unhealthy drug use in adults and adolescents. POPULATION: This recommendation statement applies to adults 18 years or older, including pregnant and postpartum persons, and adolescents aged 12 to 17 years in primary care settings. This statement does not apply to adolescents or adults who have a currently diagnosed drug use disorder or are currently undergoing or have been referred for drug use treatment. This statement applies to settings and populations for which services for accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate care can be offered or referred. EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT: In adults, the USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening by asking questions about unhealthy drug use has moderate net benefit when services for accurate diagnosis of unhealthy drug use or drug use disorders, effective treatment, and appropriate care can be offered or referred. In adolescents, because of the lack of evidence, the USPSTF concludes that the benefits and harms of screening for unhealthy drug use are uncertain and that the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF recommends screening by asking questions about unhealthy drug use in adults 18 years or older. Screening should be implemented when services for accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate care can be offered or referred. (Screening refers to asking questions about unhealthy drug use, not testing biological specimens.) (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for unhealthy drug use in adolescents. (I statement).


Subject(s)
Mass Screening/standards , Narcotic Antagonists/therapeutic use , Psychotherapy , Substance Abuse Detection/standards , Substance-Related Disorders/diagnosis , Adolescent , Adult , Humans , Mass Screening/adverse effects , Mass Screening/methods , Narcotic Antagonists/adverse effects , Sensitivity and Specificity , Substance Abuse Detection/methods , Substance-Related Disorders/drug therapy , Substance-Related Disorders/therapy , Surveys and Questionnaires
20.
JAMA ; 323(20): 2060-2066, 2020 05 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32453374

ABSTRACT

Importance: In 2017, an estimated 7.9% of persons aged 12 to 17 years reported illicit drug use in the past month, and an estimated 50% of adolescents in the US had used an illicit drug by the time they graduated from high school. Young adults aged 18 to 25 years have a higher rate of current illicit drug use, with an estimated 23.2% currently using illicit drugs. Illicit drug use is associated with many negative health, social, and economic consequences and is a significant contributor to 3 of the leading causes of death among young persons (aged 10-24 years): unintentional injuries including motor vehicle crashes, suicide, and homicide. Objective: To update its 2014 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a review of the evidence on the potential benefits and harms of interventions to prevent illicit drug use in children, adolescents, and young adults. Population: This recommendation applies to children (11 years and younger), adolescents (aged 12-17 years), and young adults (aged 18-25 years), including pregnant persons. Evidence Assessment: Because of limited and inadequate evidence, the USPSTF concludes that the benefits and harms of primary care-based interventions to prevent illicit drug use in children, adolescents, and young adults are uncertain and that the evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms. More research is needed. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of primary care-based behavioral counseling interventions to prevent illicit drug use, including nonmedical use of prescription drugs, in children, adolescents, and young adults. (I statement).


Subject(s)
Behavior Therapy , Counseling , Health Education , Illicit Drugs , Prescription Drugs , Primary Health Care , Substance-Related Disorders/prevention & control , Adolescent , Alcohol Drinking/prevention & control , Child , Humans , Marijuana Abuse/prevention & control , Mass Screening , Substance-Related Disorders/diagnosis , Tobacco Use/prevention & control , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL