Cannabis Use in Pregnancy and Neonatal Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: To determine whether prenatal cannabis use alone increases the likelihood of fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Study Design: We searched bibliographic databases, such as PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane reviews, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar from inception through February 14, 2022. Cohort or case-control studies with prespecified fetal or neonatal outcomes in pregnancies with prenatal cannabis use. Primary outcomes were preterm birth (PTB; <37 weeks of gestation), small-for-gestational-age (SGA), birthweight (grams), and perinatal mortality. Two independent reviewers screened studies. Studies were extracted by one reviewer and confirmed by a second using a predefined template. Risk of bias assessment of studies, using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation for evaluating the certainty of evidence for select outcomes were performed by two independent reviewers with disagreements resolved by a third. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted, using adjusted and unadjusted effect estimates, to compare groups according to prenatal exposure to cannabis use status. Results: Fifty-three studies were included. Except for birthweight, unadjusted and adjusted meta-analyses had similar results. We found very-low- to low-certainty evidence that cannabis use during pregnancy was significantly associated with greater odds of PTB (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19 to 1.69; I2, 93%; p=0.0001), SGA (aOR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 2.05; I2, 86%; p<0.0001), and perinatal mortality (aOR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.39 to 1.62; I2, 0%; p<0.0001), but not significantly different for birthweight (mean difference, -40.69 g; 95% CI, -124.22 to 42.83; I2, 85%; p=0.29). Because of substantial heterogeneity, we also conducted a narrative synthesis and found comparable results to meta-analyses. Conclusion: Prenatal cannabis use was associated with greater odds of PTB, SGA, and perinatal mortality even after accounting for prenatal tobacco use. However, our confidence in these findings is limited. Limitations of most existing studies was the failure to not include timing or quantity of cannabis use. This review can help guide health care providers with counseling, management, and addressing the limited existing safety data. Protocol Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020172343.

A scoping review of empathy recognition in text using natural language processing.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a scoping review of studies on empathy recognition in text using natural language processing (NLP) that can inform an approach to identifying physician empathic communication over patient portal messages. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched 6 databases to identify relevant studies published through May 1, 2023. The study selection was conducted through a title screening, an abstract review, and a full-text review. Our process followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. RESULTS: Of the 2446 publications identified from our searches, 39 studies were selected for the final review, which summarized: (1) definitions and context of empathy, (2) data sources and tested models, and (3) model performance. Definitions of empathy varied in their specificity to the context and setting of the study. The most common settings in which empathy was studied were reactions to news stories, health-related social media forums, and counseling sessions. We also observed an expected shift in methods used that coincided with the introduction of transformer-based models. DISCUSSION: Aspects of the current approaches taken across various domains may be translatable to communication over a patient portal. However, the specific barriers to identifying empathic communication in this context are unclear. While modern NLP methods appear to be able to handle empathy-related tasks, challenges remain in precisely defining and measuring empathy in text. CONCLUSION: Existing work that has attempted to measure empathy in text using NLP provides a useful basis for future studies of patient-physician asynchronous communication, but consideration for the conceptualization of empathy is needed.

Screening and Interventions for Social Risk Factors: Technical Brief to Support the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Evidence-based guidance is limited on how clinicians should screen for social risk factors and which interventions related to these risk factors improve health outcomes. Objective: To describe research on screening and interventions for social risk factors to inform US Preventive Services Task Force considerations of the implications for its portfolio of recommendations. Data Sources: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts (through 2018); Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network evidence library (January 2019 through May 2021); surveillance through May 21, 2021; interviews with 17 key informants. Study Selection: Individual-level and health care system-level interventions with a link to the health care system that addressed at least 1 of 7 social risk domains: housing instability, food insecurity, transportation difficulties, utility needs, interpersonal safety, education, and financial strain. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data from studies and a second investigator evaluated data abstractions for completeness and accuracy; key informant interviews were recorded, transcribed, summarized, and integrated with evidence from the literature; narrative synthesis with supporting tables and figures. Main Outcomes and Measures: Validity of multidomain social risk screening tools; all outcomes reported for social risk-related interventions; challenges or unintended consequences of screening and interventions. Results: Many multidomain social risk screening tools have been developed, but they vary widely in their assessment of social risk and few have been validated. This technical brief identified 106 social risk intervention studies (N = 5 978 596). Of the interventions studied, 73 (69%; n = 127 598) addressed multiple social risk domains. The most frequently addressed domains were food insecurity (67/106 studies [63%], n = 141 797), financial strain (52/106 studies [49%], n = 111 962), and housing instability (63/106 studies [59%], n = 5 881 222). Food insecurity, housing instability, and transportation difficulties were identified by key informants as the most important social risk factors to identify in health care. Thirty-eight studies (36%, n = 5 850 669) used an observational design with no comparator, and 19 studies (18%, n = 15 205) were randomized clinical trials. Health care utilization measures were the most commonly reported outcomes in the 68 studies with a comparator (38 studies [56%], n = 111 102). The literature and key informants described many perceived or potential challenges to implementation of social risk screening and interventions in health care. Conclusions and Relevance: Many interventions to address food insecurity, financial strain, and housing instability have been studied, but more randomized clinical trials that report health outcomes from social risk screening and intervention are needed to guide widespread implementation in health care.

Interventions for Tobacco Cessation in Adults, Including Pregnant Persons: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: It has been estimated that in 2018 nearly 20% of adults in the US were currently using a tobacco product. Objective: To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapy, behavioral interventions, and electronic cigarettes for tobacco cessation among adults, including pregnant persons, to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: PubMed, PsycInfo, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination of Health Technology Assessment; surveillance through September 25, 2020. Study Selection: Systematic reviews of tobacco cessation interventions and randomized clinical trials that evaluated the effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) or pharmacotherapy among pregnant persons. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction; qualitative synthesis and random-effects meta-analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Health outcomes, tobacco cessation at 6 months or more, and adverse events. Results: Sixty-seven reviews addressing pharmacotherapy and behavioral interventions were included as well as 9 trials (N = 3942) addressing e-cigarettes for smoking cessation and 7 trials (N = 2285) of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) use in pregnancy. Combined pharmacotherapy and behavioral interventions (pooled risk ratio [RR], 1.83 [95% CI, 1.68-1.98]), NRT (RR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.49-1.61]), bupropion (RR, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.52-1.77]), varenicline (RR, 2.24 [95% CI, 2.06-2.43]), and behavioral interventions such as advice from clinicians (RR, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.58-1.96]) were all associated with increased quit rates compared with minimal support or placebo at 6 months or longer. None of the drugs were associated with serious adverse events. Five trials (n = 3117) reported inconsistent findings on the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes on smoking cessation at 6 to 12 months among smokers when compared with placebo or NRT, and none suggested higher rates of serious adverse events. Among pregnant persons, behavioral interventions were associated with greater smoking cessation during late pregnancy (RR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.23-1.48]), compared with no intervention. Rates of validated cessation among pregnant women allocated to NRT compared with placebo were not significantly different (pooled RR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.79-1.56], n = 2033). Conclusions and Relevance: There is strong evidence that a range of pharmacologic and behavioral interventions, both individually and in combination, are effective in increasing smoking cessation in nonpregnant adults. In pregnancy, behavioral interventions are effective for smoking cessation, but data are limited on the use of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. Data on the effectiveness and safety of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation among adults are also limited and results are inconsistent.

Primary Care Access to New Patient Appointments for California Medicaid Enrollees: A Simulated Patient Study.

PURPOSE: We undertook a study to evaluate variation in the availability of primary care new patient appointments for Medi-Cal (California Medicaid) enrollees in Northern California, and its relationship to emergency department (ED) use after Medicaid expansion. METHODS: We placed simulated calls by purported Medi-Cal enrollees to 581 primary care clinicians (PCCs) listed as accepting new patients in online directories of Medi-Cal managed care plans. Data from the California Health Interview Survey, Medi-Cal enrollment reports, and California hospital discharge records were used in analyses. We developed multilevel, mixed-effect models to evaluate variation in appointment access. Multiple linear regression was used to examine the relationship between primary care access and ED use by county. RESULTS: Availability of PCC new patient appointments to Medi-Cal enrollees lacking a PCC varied significantly across counties in the multilevel model, ranging from 77 enrollees (95% CI, 70-81) to 472 enrollees (95% CI, 378-628) per each available new patient appointment. Just 19% of PCCs had available appointments within the state-mandated 10 business days. Clinicians at Federally Qualified Health Centers had higher availability of new patient appointments (rate ratio = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.24-1.97). Counties with poorer PCC access had higher ED use by Medi-Cal enrollees. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to findings from other states, access to primary care in Northern California was limited for new patient Medi-Cal enrollees and varied across counties, despite standard statewide reimbursement rates. Counties with more limited access to primary care new patient appointments had higher ED use by Medi-Cal enrollees.

Screening for Cervical Cancer With High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Cervical cancer can be prevented with detection and treatment of precancerous cell changes caused primarily by high-risk types of human papillomavirus (hrHPV), the causative agents in more than 90% of cervical cancers. Objective: To systematically review benefits and harms of cervical cancer screening for hrHPV to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Collaboration Registry of Controlled Trials from January 2011 through February 15, 2017; surveillance through May 25, 2018. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing primary hrHPV screening alone or hrHPV cotesting (both hrHPV testing and cytology) with cytology (Papanicolaou [Pap] test) screening alone. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and quality rated included studies; data were qualitatively synthesized. Main Outcomes and Measures: Invasive cervical cancer; cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN); false-positive, colposcopy, and biopsy rates; psychological harms. Results: Eight RCTs (n = 410 556), 5 cohort studies (n = 402 615), and 1 individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis (n = 176 464) were included. Trials were heterogeneous for screening interval, number of rounds, and protocol. For primary hrHPV screening, evidence was consistent across 4 trials demonstrating increased detection of CIN 3 or worse (CIN 3+) in round 1 (relative risk [RR] range, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.09-2.37] to 7.46 [95% CI, 1.02-54.66]). Among 4 hrHPV cotesting trials, first-round CIN 3+ detection was not significantly different between screening groups; RRs for cumulative CIN 3+ detection over 2 screening rounds ranged from 0.91 to 1.13. In first-round screening, false-positive rates for primary hrHPV screening ranged from 6.6% to 7.4%, compared with 2.6% to 6.5% for cytology. For cotesting, false-positives ranged from 5.8% to 19.9% in the first round of screening, compared with 2.6% to 10.9% for cytology. First-round colposcopy rates were also higher, ranging 1.2% to 7.9% for primary hrHPV testing, compared with 1.1% to 3.1% for cytology alone; colposcopy rates for cotesting ranged from 6.8% to 10.9%, compared with 3.3% to 5.2% for cytology alone. The IPD meta-analysis of data from 4 cotesting trials and 1 primary hrHPV screening trial found lower risk of invasive cervical cancer with any hrHPV screening compared with cytology alone (pooled RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.40-0.89]). Conclusions and Relevance: Primary hrHPV screening detected higher rates of CIN 3+ at first-round screening compared with cytology. Cotesting trials did not show initial increased CIN 3+ detection. Both hrHPV screening strategies had higher false-positive and colposcopy rates than cytology, which could lead to more treatments with potential harms.

Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Screening for Prostate Cancer: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among US men. Objective: To systematically review evidence on prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based prostate cancer screening, treatments for localized prostate cancer, and prebiopsy risk calculators to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: Searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Registries and Databases from July 1, 2011, through July 15, 2017, with a surveillance search on February 1, 2018. Study Selection: English-language reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of screening; cohort studies reporting harms; RCTs and cohort studies of active localized cancer treatments vs conservative approaches (eg, active surveillance, watchful waiting); external validations of prebiopsy risk calculators to identify aggressive cancers. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prostate cancer and all-cause mortality; false-positive screening results, biopsy complications, overdiagnosis; adverse effects of active treatments. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for treatment harms. Results: Sixty-three studies in 104 publications were included (N = 1 904 950). Randomization to PSA screening was not associated with reduced risk of prostate cancer mortality in either a US trial with substantial control group contamination (n = 76 683) or a UK trial with low adherence to a single PSA screen (n = 408 825) but was associated with significantly reduced prostate cancer mortality in a European trial (n = 162 243; relative risk [RR], 0.79 [95% CI, 0.69-0.91]; absolute risk reduction, 1.1 deaths per 10 000 person-years [95% CI, 0.5-1.8]). Of 61 604 men screened in the European trial, 17.8% received false-positive results. In 3 cohorts (n = 15 136), complications requiring hospitalization occurred in 0.5% to 1.6% of men undergoing biopsy after abnormal screening findings. Overdiagnosis was estimated to occur in 20.7% to 50.4% of screen-detected cancers. In an RCT of men with screen-detected prostate cancer (n = 1643), neither radical prostatectomy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.21-1.93]) nor radiation therapy (HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.15-1.69]) were associated with significantly reduced prostate cancer mortality vs active monitoring, although each was associated with significantly lower risk of metastatic disease. Relative to conservative management, radical prostatectomy was associated with increased risk of urinary incontinence (pooled RR, 2.27 [95% CI, 1.82-2.84]; 3 trials; n = 1796) and erectile dysfunction (pooled RR, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.62-2.04]; 2 trials; n = 883). Relative to conservative management (8 cohort studies; n = 3066), radiation therapy was associated with increased risk of erectile dysfunction (pooled RR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.20-1.42]). Conclusions and Relevance: PSA screening may reduce prostate cancer mortality risk but is associated with false-positive results, biopsy complications, and overdiagnosis. Compared with conservative approaches, active treatments for screen-detected prostate cancer have unclear effects on long-term survival but are associated with sexual and urinary difficulties.