Search

Importance: Depression, suicidal ideation, and self-harm behaviors in youth are associated with functional impairment and suicide.Objective: To review the evidence on screening for depression or suicide risk in children and adolescents to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and trial registries through July 19, 2021; references, experts, and surveillance through June 1, 2022.Study Selection: English-language, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of screening for depression or suicide risk; diagnostic test accuracy studies; RCTs of psychotherapy and first-line pharmacotherapy; RCTs, observational studies, and systematic reviews reporting harms.Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers assessed titles/abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality and extracted data; when at least 3 similar studies were available, meta-analyses were conducted.Main Outcomes and Measures: Test accuracy, symptoms, response, remission, loss of diagnosis, mortality, functioning, suicide-related events, and adverse events.Results: Twenty-one studies (N = 5433) were included for depression and 19 studies (N = 6290) for suicide risk. For depression, no studies reported on the direct effects of screening on health outcomes, and 7 studies (n = 3281) reported sensitivity of screening instruments ranging from 0.59 to 0.94 and specificity from 0.38 to 0.96. Depression treatment with psychotherapy was associated with improved symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory pooled standardized mean difference, -0.58 [95% CI, -0.83 to -0.34]; n = 471; 4 studies; and Hamilton Depression Scale pooled mean difference, -2.25 [95% CI, -4.09 to -0.41]; n = 262; 3 studies) clinical response (3 studies with statistically significant results using varying thresholds), and loss of diagnosis (relative risk, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.00 to 3.00; n = 395; 4 studies). Pharmacotherapy was associated with improvement on symptoms (Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised mean difference, -3.76 [95% CI, -5.95 to -1.57; n = 793; 3 studies), remission (relative risk, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.45]; n = 793; 3 studies) and functioning (Children's Global Assessment Scale pooled mean difference, 2.60 (95% CI, 0.78 to 4.42; n = 793; 3 studies). Other outcomes were not statistically significantly different. Differences in suicide-related outcomes and adverse events for pharmacotherapy when compared with placebo were not statistically significant. For suicide risk, no studies reported on the direct benefits of screening on health outcomes, and 2 RCTs (n = 2675) reported no harms of screening. One study (n = 581) reported on sensitivity of screening, ranging from 0.87 to 0.91; specificity was 0.60. Sixteen RCTs (n = 3034) reported on suicide risk interventions. Interventions were associated with lower scores for the Beck Hopelessness Scale (pooled mean difference, -2.35 [95% CI, -4.06 to -0.65]; n = 644; 4 RCTs). Findings for other suicide-related outcomes were mixed or not statistically significantly different.Conclusion and Relevance: Indirect evidence suggested that some screening instruments were reasonably accurate for detecting depression. Psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy were associated with some benefits and no statistically significant harms for depression, but the evidence was limited for suicide risk screening instruments and interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Anxiety in children and adolescents is associated with impaired functioning, educational underachievement, and future mental health conditions.Objective: To review the evidence on screening for anxiety in children and adolescents to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and trial registries through July 19, 2021; references, experts, and surveillance through June 1, 2022.Study Selection: English-language, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of screening; diagnostic test accuracy studies; RCTs of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or US Food and Drug Administration-approved pharmacotherapy; RCTs, observational studies, and systematic reviews reporting harms.Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers assessed titles/abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality and extracted data; when at least 3 similar studies were available, meta-analyses were conducted.Main Outcomes and Measures: Test accuracy, symptoms, response, remission, loss of diagnosis, all-cause mortality, functioning, suicide-related symptoms or events, adverse events.Results: Thirty-nine studies (N = 6065) were included. No study reported on the direct benefits or harms of screening on health outcomes. Ten studies (n = 3260) reported the sensitivity of screening instruments, ranging from 0.34 to 1.00, with specificity ranging from 0.47 to 0.99. Twenty-nine RCTs (n = 2805) reported on treatment: 22 on CBT, 6 on pharmacotherapy, and 1 on CBT, sertraline, and CBT plus sertraline. CBT was associated with gains on several pooled measures of symptom improvement (magnitude of change varied by outcome measure), response (pooled relative risk [RR], 1.89 [95% CI, 1.17 to 3.05]; n = 606; 6 studies), remission (RR, 2.68 [95% CI, 1.48 to 4.88]; n = 321; 4 studies), and loss of diagnosis (RR range, 3.02-3.09) when compared with usual care or wait-list controls. The evidence on functioning for CBT was mixed. Pharmacotherapy, when compared with placebo, was associated with gains on 2 pooled measures of symptom improvement-mean difference (Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale mean difference, -4.0 [95% CI, -5.5 to -2.5]; n = 726; 5 studies; and Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale mean difference, -0.84 [95% CI, -1.13 to -0.55]; n = 550; 4 studies) and response (RR, 2.11 [95% CI, 1.58 to 2.98]; n = 370; 5 studies)-but was mixed on measures of functioning. Eleven RCTs (n = 1293) reported harms of anxiety treatments. Suicide-related harms were rare, and the differences were not statistically significantly different.Conclusions and Relevance: Indirect evidence suggested that some screening instruments were reasonably accurate. CBT and pharmacotherapy were associated with benefits; no statistically significant association with harms was reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cigarette smoking prevalence is more than two times greater among incarcerated adults, a population usually excluded from national health surveys. African American young adult (18-25) men are less likely to smoke cigarettes than their white counterparts. However, they are two and a-half-times more likely to be incarcerated. This study estimated smoking prevalence with noninstitutionalized and incarcerated samples combined to determine if excluding incarcerated adults impacts smoking prevalence for certain populations.Methods: The Bureau of Justice Statistics last fielded the Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correction Facilities in 2003-2004. We combined data from Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correction Facilities (n = 17 910) and the 2003 and 2004 National Health Interview Survey (n = 61 470) to calculate combined cigarette smoking estimates by race/ethnicity, sex, and age.Results: Inmates represented the greatest proportion of smokers among African American men. Among African American young adult men, inmates represented 15.2% of all smokers in the combined population, compared to 2.0% among white young adult men. Cigarette smoking prevalence was 17.6% in the noninstitutionalized population of young adult African American men and 19.7% in the combined population. Among white young adult men, cigarette smoking prevalence was 29.8% in the noninstitutionalized population, and 30.2% in the combined population. There was little difference in estimates among women.Conclusions: The exclusion of incarcerated African American young adult men may result in a small underestimation of cigarette smoking prevalence in this population. Increasing access to smoking cessation support among inmates may reduce smoking prevalence in disproportionately incarcerated segments of the US population.Implications: The exclusion of incarcerated adults from national survey data should be considered when examining differences in cigarette smoking prevalence estimates between African American and white young adult men. Approximately one in six African American young adult men who smoke were incarcerated. Increasing access to smoking cessation support among inmates may reduce smoking prevalence among disproportionately incarcerated segments of the population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Accounting for occasional or intermittent e-cigarette use has yielded higher estimates of current use among U.S. adults. However, frequency of e-cigarette use by population subgroups is not well described. This study assessed e-cigarette use frequency by sociodemographic characteristics and other tobacco product use among U.S. adults.Methods: This study analyzed combined data from the 2012-2013 (n=60,192) and 2013-2014 (n=75,233) National Adult Tobacco Survey, a telephone-based survey of U.S. adults aged ≥18 years, to assess frequency of e-cigarette use (daily, some days, rarely) by sex, age, race/ethnicity, education, annual household income, U.S. region, marital status, sexual orientation, and cigarette smoking and other tobacco product use (cigars, cigarillos, little filtered cigars; traditional pipes; water pipes; and chewing tobacco, snuff, dip, snus, and dissolvable tobacco products). Analyses took place in 2016.Results: Among current e-cigarette users, 19.3% used daily, 29.3% used some days, and 51.4% used rarely. Daily use was lowest among younger adults, Hispanics, and those who were single, never married, or not living with a partner; and greatest among non-Hispanic Asians (p<0.0001). Among current e-cigarette users, 25.3% were cigarette-only smokers, 52.8% smoked cigarettes and used other tobacco products, 5.5% used other tobacco products only, 6.5% were former cigarette-only smokers, 6.7% were former users of cigarettes and other tobacco products, 1.3% were former other tobacco product users only, and 1.8% never used cigarettes or other tobacco products.Conclusions: E-cigarette use frequency varies by sociodemographic characteristics and other tobacco use. Further surveillance, particularly related to frequency of e-cigarette use and its impact on cigarette cessation, could inform public health policy, planning, and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]