Primary Care Interventions to Prevent Child Maltreatment: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Child maltreatment, which includes child abuse and neglect, can have profound effects on health, development, survival, and well-being throughout childhood and adulthood. The prevalence of child maltreatment in the US is uncertain and likely underestimated. In 2021, an estimated 600 000 children were identified by Child Protective Services as experiencing abuse or neglect and an estimated 1820 children died of abuse and neglect. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate benefits and harms of primary care-feasible or referable behavioral counseling interventions to prevent child maltreatment in children and adolescents younger than 18 years without signs or symptoms of maltreatment. Population: Children and adolescents younger than 18 years who do not have signs or symptoms of or known exposure to maltreatment. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of primary care interventions to prevent child maltreatment in children and adolescents younger than 18 years without signs or symptoms of or known exposure to maltreatment. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of primary care interventions to prevent child maltreatment. (I statement).

Complaint behaviour among healthcare users: self-reported complaint experience and complaint proneness in adult men.

AIMS: When patients are harmed by, or dissatisfied with, healthcare, only a minority will lodge a complaint or file a claim for compensation. This survey aimed to investigate complaint behaviour and inequalities in complaints using self-reports and hypothetical case vignettes. METHODS: Cross-sectional, web-based survey among 6755 Danish men aged 45-70 years (response rate=30%). Participants reported their lifetime complaint experience and the likelihood that they would complain in response to hypothetical case vignettes. RESULTS: Overall, 4.8% of participants had complained about healthcare. Predictors were younger age (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.27, p=0.002 45-50 years compared with 65-70 years), chronic illness (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.98, p=0.006), rural residence (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.73, p=0.010 comparing least and most populated areas), high healthcare utilisation (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.03, p=0.002 primary care, and OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.52 to 2.55, p=0.000 hospital care) and decreased agreeableness on the 10-item Big Five personality inventory (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99, p=0.034). Complaint experience was associated with increased wish to complain about the treatment in the hypothetical vignettes (p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Roughly 1 in 20 men reported having complained about healthcare. Complaints were more common among men who were younger, living in rural areas, diagnosed with chronic illness and high users of healthcare services. Prior complaint experience may be associated with a higher proclivity for complaining about future healthcare. Findings suggest differences in the way healthcare users respond to care experiences, pointing to the importance of aligning expectations and providing clear information about treatment options.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Screening for Speech and Language Delay and Disorders in Children: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Speech and language delays and disorders can pose significant problems for children and their families. Evidence suggests that school-aged children with speech or language delays may be at increased risk of learning and literacy disabilities, including difficulties with reading and writing. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate benefits and harms of screening for speech and language delay and disorders in children 5 years or younger. Population: Asymptomatic children 5 years or younger whose parents or clinicians do not have specific concerns about their speech, language, hearing, or development. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for speech and language delay and disorders in children who do not present with signs or symptoms or parent/caregiver concerns. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for speech and language delay and disorders in children 5 years or younger without signs or symptoms. (I statement).

Personality Affects Zebrafish Response to Sertraline.

Sertraline is widely prescribed to treat anxiety and depression. Sertraline acts by blocking serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine transporters systems and has been detected in surface waters globally, where it may impact fish behavior. We classified zebrafish personality on three behavioral axes, boldness, anxiety, and sociability, assigning fish as either high or low in each category. The fish were exposed to nominal concentrations of 0, 5, 50, 500, or 5000 ng/L sertraline (measured concentrations: <10, 21.3, 370, and 2200 ng/L, respectively) to assess changes in boldness, anxiety, and sociability after 7 and 28 days. We also measured shoaling behavior and response to an alarm cue, and determined the gut microbiome of a subset of fish. After 7 days there was no overall effect of sertraline on boldness, but there was an interaction between initial personality and sex, with a stronger impact on females classified as low-boldness personality. Sertraline reduced sociability in all treatments compared with the control, but there was again an interaction between sertraline and initial personality. Fish that were classified as low-sociability responded more strongly to sertraline. After 7 days, fish exposed to a nominal concentration of 5000 ng/L (2200 ng/L measured) showed higher anxiety than controls, with the overall pattern of initial behavior retained. After 28 days, similar patterns were observed, but with higher variation. There was only a weak association between the gut microbiome and personality. Overall, the study highlights the importance of considering initial behavior, which can affect response to pollutants. Our results may also be applicable to human studies and provide a mechanism to explain why different individuals respond differently to the drug. Environ Toxicol Chem 2024;43:132-146. © 2023 SETAC.

Aligning Prevention Evidence Gaps With Prevention Research.

This Viewpoint describes the development of tools to communicate actionable steps to address research needs and gaps for USPSTF recommendations that have insufficient evidence to make definitive guidance.

Screening and Preventive Interventions for Oral Health in Children and Adolescents Aged 5 to 17 Years: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Oral health is fundamental to health and well-being across the lifespan. Oral health conditions affect the daily lives of school-age children and adolescents, leading to loss of more than 51 million school hours every year. Untreated oral health conditions in children can lead to serious infections and affect growth, development, and quality of life. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate screening and preventive interventions for oral health conditions in children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years. Population: Asymptomatic children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for oral health conditions (eg, dental caries) performed by primary care clinicians in asymptomatic children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years. The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of preventive interventions for oral health conditions (eg, dental caries) performed by primary care clinicians in asymptomatic children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years. Recommendations: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening performed by primary care clinicians for oral health conditions, including dental caries, in children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of preventive interventions performed by primary care clinicians for oral health conditions, including dental caries, in children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years. (I statement).

Screening and Preventive Interventions for Oral Health in Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Oral health is fundamental to health and well-being across the life span. Dental caries (cavities) and periodontal disease (gum disease) are common and often untreated oral health conditions that affect eating, speaking, learning, smiling, and employment potential. Untreated oral health conditions can lead to tooth loss, irreversible tooth damage, and other serious adverse health outcomes. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate screening and preventive interventions for oral health conditions in adults. Population: Asymptomatic adults 18 years or older. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for oral health conditions (eg, dental caries or periodontal disease) performed by primary care clinicians in asymptomatic adults. The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of preventive interventions for oral health conditions (eg, dental caries or periodontal disease) performed by primary care clinicians in asymptomatic adults. Recommendations: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening performed by primary care clinicians for oral health conditions, including dental caries or periodontal-related disease, in adults. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of preventive interventions performed by primary care clinicians for oral health conditions, including dental caries or periodontal-related disease, in adults. (I statement).

Would You Screen This Patient for Cognitive Impairment? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Dementia, according to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, is defined by a significant decline in 1 or more cognitive domains that interferes with a person's independence in daily activities. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) differs from dementia in that the impairment is not sufficient to interfere with independence. For the purposes of this discussion, cognitive impairment (CI) includes both dementia and MCI. Various screening tests are available for CI. These tests ask patients to perform a series of tasks that assess 1 or more domains of cognitive function or ask a caregiver to report on the patient's abilities. A positive result on a screening test does not equate to a diagnosis of CI; rather, it should lead to additional testing to confirm the diagnosis. On review of the evidence, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concluded in 2020 that the evidence was insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for CI in older adults ("I statement"). The USPSTF did clarify that although there is insufficient evidence, there may be important reasons to identify CI. In this article, 2 experts review the available evidence to answer the following questions: What screening tools are available, and how effective are they in identifying patients with CI? What interventions are available for patients found to have CI, to what extent do they improve patient outcomes, and what, if any, negative effects occur? And, would they recommend screening for CI, and why or why not?

Screening for Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: US Preventive Services Task Force Final Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are among the leading causes of maternal morbidity and mortality in the US. The rate of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy has been increasing from approximately 500 cases per 10 000 deliveries in 1993 to 1021 cases per 10 000 deliveries in 2016 to 2017. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Population: Pregnant persons without a known diagnosis of a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy or chronic hypertension. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for hypertensive disorders in pregnancy with blood pressure measurements has substantial net benefit. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for hypertensive disorders in pregnant persons with blood pressure measurements throughout pregnancy. (B recommendation).

Preexposure Prophylaxis to Prevent Acquisition of HIV: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: An estimated 1.2 million persons in the US currently have HIV, and more than 760 000 persons have died of complications related to HIV since the first cases were reported in 1981. Although treatable, HIV is not curable and has significant health consequences. Therefore, effective strategies to prevent HIV are an important public health and clinical priority. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of preexposure prophylaxis with antiretroviral therapy for the prevention of HIV acquisition, and the diagnostic accuracy of risk assessment tools to identify persons at increased risk of HIV acquisition. Population: Adolescents and adults who do not have HIV and are at increased risk of HIV. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that there is a substantial net benefit from the use of effective antiretroviral therapy to reduce the risk of acquisition of HIV in persons at increased risk of acquiring HIV. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends that clinicians prescribe preexposure prophylaxis using effective antiretroviral therapy to persons at increased risk of HIV acquisition to decrease the risk of acquiring HIV. (A recommendation).

Folic Acid Supplementation to Prevent Neural Tube Defects: US Preventive Services Task Force Reaffirmation Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Neural tube defects are among the most common congenital malformations in the US, with an estimated 3000 pregnancies affected each year. Many of these neural tube defects are caused by low folate levels in the body. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a reaffirmation evidence update on the benefits and harms of folic acid supplementation. Population: Persons who are planning to or could become pregnant. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that, for persons who are planning to or could become pregnant, there is high certainty that folic acid supplementation has a substantial net benefit to prevent neural tube defects in their offspring. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends that all persons planning to or who could become pregnant take a daily supplement containing 0.4 to 0.8 mg (400 to 800 µg) of folic acid. (A recommendation).

Measure of Caregiver Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Knowledge Is Responsive to Decision Aid on Treatment for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Adapt and test a measure of knowledge for caregivers of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and evaluate the impact of the information component of a decision aid (DA) on participant knowledge. METHODS: A set of seven knowledge items were created based on prior knowledge measures and clinical guidelines. As part of a larger cross-sectional survey study of caregivers of children diagnosed with ADHD, caregivers were randomized to one of two arms: 1) a DA arm, where participants reviewed the information component of the Cincinnati Children's Hospital's DA, and 2) a control arm, where participants were not shown a DA. All participants completed the seven knowledge items. Knowledge items were assessed for difficulty, quality of distractors, acceptability, and redundancy. Total knowledge scores (0-100) for the DA and control arm were compared. RESULTS: Caregivers were assigned to the DA arm (n = 243) or the control arm (n = 260). All 7 knowledge items were retained as no items were too difficult or too easy, all response options were used, there were little missing data, and no items were redundant. The overall knowledge score was normally distributed, and almost covered the full range of scores (5-100). Those who received the DA component had higher knowledge scores (M=68, SD=23) than those who did not receive the DA component (M=60, SD=19, P < .01, d=0.4). CONCLUSIONS: The Caregiver ADHD Knowledge (CAKe) measure was acceptable and demonstrated construct validity as those who were assigned to review the DA component demonstrated greater knowledge than those who were not assigned to review the DA component.

Screening for Lipid Disorders in Children and Adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Familial hypercholesterolemia and multifactorial dyslipidemia are 2 conditions that cause abnormally high lipid levels in children, which can lead to premature cardiovascular events (eg, myocardial infarction and stroke) and death in adulthood. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for lipid disorders in asymptomatic children and adolescents. Population: Asymptomatic children and adolescents 20 years or younger without a known diagnosis of a lipid disorder. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient and the balance of benefits and harms for screening for lipid disorders in asymptomatic children and adolescents 20 years or younger cannot be determined. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for lipid disorders in children and adolescents 20 years or younger. (I statement).

Shared Decision Making for Elective Surgical Procedures in Older Adults with and without Cognitive Insufficiencies.

PURPOSE: Older adults are prone to cognitive impairment, which may affect their ability to engage in aspects of shared decision making (SDM) and their ability to complete surveys about the SDM process. This study examined the surgical decision-making processes of older adults with and without cognitive insufficiencies and evaluated the psychometric properties of the SDM Process scale. METHODS: Eligible patients were 65 y or older and scheduled for a preoperative appointment before elective surgery (e.g., arthroplasty). One week before the visit, staff contacted patients via phone to administer the baseline survey, including the SDM Process scale (range 0-4), SURE scale (top scored), and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test version 8.1 BLIND English (MoCA-blind; score range 0-22; scores < 19 indicate cognitive insufficiency). Patients completed a follow-up survey 3 mo after their visit to assess decision regret (top scored) and retest reliability for the SDM Process scale. RESULTS: Twenty-six percent (127/488) of eligible patients completed the survey; 121 were included in the analytic data set, and 85 provided sufficient follow-up data. Forty percent of patients (n = 49/121) had MoCA-blind scores indicating cognitive insufficiencies. Overall SDM Process scores did not differ by cognitive status (intact cognition x¯ = 2.5, s = 1.0 v. cognitive insufficiencies x¯ = 2.5, s = 1.0; P = 0.80). SURE top scores were similar across groups (83% intact cognition v. 90% cognitive insufficiencies; P = 0.43). While patients with intact cognition had less regret, the difference was not statistically significant (92% intact cognition v. 79% cognitive insufficiencies; P = 0.10). SDM Process scores had low missing data and good retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Reported SDM, decisional conflict, and decision regret did not differ significantly for patients with and without cognitive insufficiencies. The SDM Process scale was an acceptable, reliable, and valid measure of SDM in patients with and without cognitive insufficiencies. HIGHLIGHTS: Forty percent of patients 65 y or older who were scheduled for elective surgery had scores indicative of cognitive insufficiencies.Patient-reported shared decision making, decisional conflict, and decision regret did not differ significantly for patients with and without cognitive insufficiencies.The Shared Decision Making Process scale was an acceptable, reliable, and valid measure of shared decision making in patients with and without cognitive insufficiencies.

'My doctor should decide' - Predictors for healthcare users' stated preferences regarding medical decision-making.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate predictors for healthcare users' declared decision control preferences and test their association with satisfaction in vignettes detailing various decision-making. METHODS: Cross-sectional vignette survey within a representative general male population aged 45-70 years (response rate 30%). Survey vignettes illustrated different levels of patient involvement. Participants rated their satisfaction with healthcare illustrated and separately rated their 'control preferences'. Comparisons were conducted with linear regression. RESULTS: Preferring the doctor to predominantly or exclusively decide (1588/6755 respondents) was associated with older age, being single, lower education, having chronic illness, and living in low-income and less populated areas, with fewer non-western immigrants. Following adjustment, lower education and chronic illness remained statistically significant. Personalities with less openness had preference for least control. When presented with specific clinical scenarios, respondents preferring active or passive roles were equally satisfied with scenarios demonstrating shared decision-making. DISCUSSION: Some groups of healthcare users were more likely to say that they preferred their doctor to decide. However, findings suggest that control preference statements, prior to facing a decision, should be interpreted with caution. PRACTICAL VALUE: Study findings highlight that patients vary regarding their expressed wish for control in medical decision-making but they seem equally satisfied with shared decision-making scenarios.

Screening for Anxiety Disorders in Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Anxiety disorders are commonly occurring mental health conditions. They are often unrecognized in primary care settings and substantial delays in treatment initiation occur. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for anxiety disorders in asymptomatic adults. Population: Asymptomatic adults 19 years or older, including pregnant and postpartum persons. Older adults are defined as those 65 years or older. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for anxiety disorders in adults, including pregnant and postpartum persons, has a moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient on screening for anxiety disorders in older adults. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for anxiety disorders in adults, including pregnant and postpartum persons. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for anxiety disorders in older adults. (I statement).

Screening for Depression and Suicide Risk in Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Importance: Major depressive disorder (MDD), a common mental disorder in the US, may have substantial impact on the lives of affected individuals. If left untreated, MDD can interfere with daily functioning and can also be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, exacerbation of comorbid conditions, or increased mortality. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate benefits and harms of screening, accuracy of screening, and benefits and harms of treatment of MDD and suicide risk in asymptomatic adults that would be applicable to primary care settings. Population: Asymptomatic adults 19 years or older, including pregnant and postpartum persons. Older adults are defined as those 65 years or older. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for MDD in adults, including pregnant and postpartum persons and older adults, has a moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient on the benefit and harms of screening for suicide risk in adults, including pregnant and postpartum persons and older adults. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends screening for depression in the adult population, including pregnant and postpartum persons and older adults. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for suicide risk in the adult population, including pregnant and postpartum persons and older adults. (I statement).