Search

ImportanceThe prevalence of overweight and obesity is increasing among persons of childbearing age and pregnant persons. In 2015, almost half of all persons began pregnancy with overweight (24%) or obesity (24%). Reported rates of overweight and obesity are higher among Black, Alaska Native/American Indian, and Hispanic women and lower among White and Asian women. Excess weight at the beginning of pregnancy and excess gestational weight gain have been associated with adverse maternal and infant health outcomes such as a large for gestational age infant, cesarean delivery, or preterm birth.ObjectiveThe USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of behavioral counseling interventions to prevent adverse health outcomes associated with obesity during pregnancy and to evaluate intermediate outcomes, including excess gestational weight gain. This is a new recommendation.PopulationPregnant adolescents and adults in primary care settings.Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that behavioral counseling interventions aimed at promoting healthy weight gain and preventing excess gestational weight gain in pregnancy have a moderate net benefit for pregnant persons.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends that clinicians offer pregnant persons effective behavioral counseling interventions aimed at promoting healthy weight gain and preventing excess gestational weight gain in pregnancy. (B recommendation).

ImportanceColorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death for both men and women, with an estimated 52 980 persons in the US projected to die of colorectal cancer in 2021. Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among persons aged 65 to 74 years. It is estimated that 10.5% of new colorectal cancer cases occur in persons younger than 50 years. Incidence of colorectal cancer (specifically adenocarcinoma) in adults aged 40 to 49 years has increased by almost 15% from 2000-2002 to 2014-2016. In 2016, 26% of eligible adults in the US had never been screened for colorectal cancer and in 2018, 31% were not up to date with screening.ObjectiveTo update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for colorectal cancer in adults 40 years or older. The review also examined whether these findings varied by age, sex, or race/ethnicity. In addition, as in 2016, the USPSTF commissioned a report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network Colorectal Cancer Working Group to provide information from comparative modeling on how estimated life-years gained, colorectal cancer cases averted, and colorectal cancer deaths averted vary by different starting and stopping ages for various screening strategies.PopulationAsymptomatic adults 45 years or older at average risk of colorectal cancer (ie, no prior diagnosis of colorectal cancer, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease; no personal diagnosis or family history of known genetic disorders that predispose them to a high lifetime risk of colorectal cancer [such as Lynch syndrome or familial adenomatous polyposis]).Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 50 to 75 years has substantial net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years has moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years who have been previously screened has small net benefit. Adults who have never been screened for colorectal cancer are more likely to benefit.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in all adults aged 50 to 75 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians selectively offer screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years. Evidence indicates that the net benefit of screening all persons in this age group is small. In determining whether this service is appropriate in individual cases, patients and clinicians should consider the patient's overall health, prior screening history, and preferences. (C recommendation).

ImportanceThe prevalence of overweight and obesity is increasing among persons of childbearing age and pregnant persons. In 2015, almost half of all persons began pregnancy with overweight (24%) or obesity (24%). Reported rates of overweight and obesity are higher among Black, Alaska Native/American Indian, and Hispanic women and lower among White and Asian women. Excess weight at the beginning of pregnancy and excess gestational weight gain have been associated with adverse maternal and infant health outcomes such as a large for gestational age infant, cesarean delivery, or preterm birth.ObjectiveThe USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of behavioral counseling interventions to prevent adverse health outcomes associated with obesity during pregnancy and to evaluate intermediate outcomes, including excess gestational weight gain. This is a new recommendation.PopulationPregnant adolescents and adults in primary care settings.Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that behavioral counseling interventions aimed at promoting healthy weight gain and preventing excess gestational weight gain in pregnancy have a moderate net benefit for pregnant persons.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends that clinicians offer pregnant persons effective behavioral counseling interventions aimed at promoting healthy weight gain and preventing excess gestational weight gain in pregnancy. (B recommendation).

ImportanceColorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death for both men and women, with an estimated 52 980 persons in the US projected to die of colorectal cancer in 2021. Colorectal cancer is most frequently diagnosed among persons aged 65 to 74 years. It is estimated that 10.5% of new colorectal cancer cases occur in persons younger than 50 years. Incidence of colorectal cancer (specifically adenocarcinoma) in adults aged 40 to 49 years has increased by almost 15% from 2000-2002 to 2014-2016. In 2016, 26% of eligible adults in the US had never been screened for colorectal cancer and in 2018, 31% were not up to date with screening.ObjectiveTo update its 2016 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for colorectal cancer in adults 40 years or older. The review also examined whether these findings varied by age, sex, or race/ethnicity. In addition, as in 2016, the USPSTF commissioned a report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network Colorectal Cancer Working Group to provide information from comparative modeling on how estimated life-years gained, colorectal cancer cases averted, and colorectal cancer deaths averted vary by different starting and stopping ages for various screening strategies.PopulationAsymptomatic adults 45 years or older at average risk of colorectal cancer (ie, no prior diagnosis of colorectal cancer, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease; no personal diagnosis or family history of known genetic disorders that predispose them to a high lifetime risk of colorectal cancer [such as Lynch syndrome or familial adenomatous polyposis]).Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 50 to 75 years has substantial net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years has moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years who have been previously screened has small net benefit. Adults who have never been screened for colorectal cancer are more likely to benefit.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in all adults aged 50 to 75 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 45 to 49 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians selectively offer screening for colorectal cancer in adults aged 76 to 85 years. Evidence indicates that the net benefit of screening all persons in this age group is small. In determining whether this service is appropriate in individual cases, patients and clinicians should consider the patient's overall health, prior screening history, and preferences. (C recommendation).

ImportanceHypertension is a prevalent condition that affects approximately 45% of the adult US population and is the most commonly diagnosed condition at outpatient office visits. Hypertension is a major contributing risk factor for heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and chronic kidney disease.ObjectiveTo reaffirm its 2015 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for hypertension in adults, the accuracy of office blood pressure measurement for initial screening, and the accuracy of various confirmatory blood pressure measurement methods.PopulationAdults 18 years or older without known hypertension.Evidence assessmentUsing a reaffirmation deliberation process, the USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for hypertension in adults has substantial net benefit.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends screening for hypertension in adults 18 years or older with office blood pressure measurement. The USPSTF recommends obtaining blood pressure measurements outside of the clinical setting for diagnostic confirmation before starting treatment. (A recommendation).

ImportanceVitamin 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.ObjectiveTo 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.PopulationCommunity-dwelling, nonpregnant adults who have no signs or symptoms of vitamin D deficiency or conditions for which vitamin D treatment is recommended.Evidence assessmentThe 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.RecommendationThe 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).

ImportanceVitamin 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.ObjectiveTo 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.PopulationCommunity-dwelling, nonpregnant adults who have no signs or symptoms of vitamin D deficiency or conditions for which vitamin D treatment is recommended.Evidence assessmentThe 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.RecommendationThe 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).

ImportanceHypertension is a prevalent condition that affects approximately 45% of the adult US population and is the most commonly diagnosed condition at outpatient office visits. Hypertension is a major contributing risk factor for heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and chronic kidney disease.ObjectiveTo reaffirm its 2015 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for hypertension in adults, the accuracy of office blood pressure measurement for initial screening, and the accuracy of various confirmatory blood pressure measurement methods.PopulationAdults 18 years or older without known hypertension.Evidence assessmentUsing a reaffirmation deliberation process, the USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for hypertension in adults has substantial net benefit.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends screening for hypertension in adults 18 years or older with office blood pressure measurement. The USPSTF recommends obtaining blood pressure measurements outside of the clinical setting for diagnostic confirmation before starting treatment. (A recommendation).

ImportanceAge-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.ObjectiveTo 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.PopulationAsymptomatic adults 50 years or older with age-related hearing loss.Evidence assessmentBecause 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.RecommendationThe 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).

ImportanceLung cancer is the second most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death in the US. In 2020, an estimated 228 820 persons were diagnosed with lung cancer, and 135 720 persons died of the disease. The most important risk factor for lung cancer is smoking. Increasing age is also a risk factor for lung cancer. Lung cancer has a generally poor prognosis, with an overall 5-year survival rate of 20.5%. However, early-stage lung cancer has a better prognosis and is more amenable to treatment.ObjectiveTo update its 2013 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on the accuracy of screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and on the benefits and harms of screening for lung cancer and commissioned a collaborative modeling study to provide information about the optimum age at which to begin and end screening, the optimal screening interval, and the relative benefits and harms of different screening strategies compared with modified versions of multivariate risk prediction models.PopulationThis recommendation statement applies to adults aged 50 to 80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT has a moderate net benefit in persons at high risk of lung cancer based on age, total cumulative exposure to tobacco smoke, and years since quitting smoking.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT in adults aged 50 to 80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. Screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked for 15 years or develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy or the ability or willingness to have curative lung surgery. (B recommendation) This recommendation replaces the 2013 USPSTF statement that recommended annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT in adults aged 55 to 80 years who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

ImportanceAge-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.ObjectiveTo 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.PopulationAsymptomatic adults 50 years or older with age-related hearing loss.Evidence assessmentBecause 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.RecommendationThe 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).

ImportanceLung cancer is the second most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death in the US. In 2020, an estimated 228 820 persons were diagnosed with lung cancer, and 135 720 persons died of the disease. The most important risk factor for lung cancer is smoking. Increasing age is also a risk factor for lung cancer. Lung cancer has a generally poor prognosis, with an overall 5-year survival rate of 20.5%. However, early-stage lung cancer has a better prognosis and is more amenable to treatment.ObjectiveTo update its 2013 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on the accuracy of screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and on the benefits and harms of screening for lung cancer and commissioned a collaborative modeling study to provide information about the optimum age at which to begin and end screening, the optimal screening interval, and the relative benefits and harms of different screening strategies compared with modified versions of multivariate risk prediction models.PopulationThis recommendation statement applies to adults aged 50 to 80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.Evidence assessmentThe USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT has a moderate net benefit in persons at high risk of lung cancer based on age, total cumulative exposure to tobacco smoke, and years since quitting smoking.RecommendationThe USPSTF recommends annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT in adults aged 50 to 80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. Screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked for 15 years or develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy or the ability or willingness to have curative lung surgery. (B recommendation) This recommendation replaces the 2013 USPSTF statement that recommended annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT in adults aged 55 to 80 years who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Importance: Iron deficiency is the leading cause of anemia during pregnancy. According to survey data from 1999 to 2006, overall estimated prevalence of iron deficiency during pregnancy is near 18% and increases across the 3 trimesters of pregnancy (from 6.9% to 14.3% to 28.4%). An estimated 5% of pregnant persons have iron deficiency anemia. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening and supplementation for iron deficiency with and without anemia on maternal and infant health outcomes in asymptomatic pregnant persons. Population: Asymptomatic pregnant adolescents and adults. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient, and the balance of benefits and harms of screening for iron deficiency and iron deficiency anemia in asymptomatic pregnant persons on maternal and infant health outcomes cannot be determined. The USPSTF also concludes that the current evidence is insufficient, and the balance of benefits and harms of iron supplementation in asymptomatic pregnant persons on maternal and infant health outcomes cannot be determined. Recommendation: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for iron deficiency and iron deficiency anemia in pregnant persons to prevent adverse maternal and infant health outcomes. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine supplementation for iron deficiency and iron deficiency anemia in pregnant persons to prevent adverse maternal and infant health outcomes. (I statement) This 2024 Recommendation Statement from the US Preventive Services Task Force concludes that current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening and routine supplementation for iron deficiency and iron deficiency anemia in pregnant persons to prevent adverse maternal and infant health outcomes (I statement). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Approximately 19.7% of children and adolescents aged 2 to 19 years in the US have a body mass index (BMI) at or above the 95th percentile for age and sex, based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention growth charts from 2000. The prevalence of high BMI increases with age and is higher among Hispanic/Latino, Native American/Alaska Native, and non-Hispanic Black children and adolescents and children from lower-income families. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the evidence on interventions (behavioral counseling and pharmacotherapy) for weight loss or weight management in children and adolescents that can be provided in or referred from a primary care setting. Population: Children and adolescents 6 years or older. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that providing or referring children and adolescents 6 years or older with a high BMI to comprehensive, intensive behavioral interventions has a moderate net benefit. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends that clinicians provide or refer children and adolescents 6 years or older with a high BMI (≥95th percentile for age and sex) to comprehensive, intensive behavioral interventions. (B recommendation) This 2024 Recommendation Statement from the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends that clinicians provide or refer children and adolescents 6 years or older with a high body mass index (≥95th percentile for age and sex) to comprehensive, intensive behavioral interventions (B recommendation). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Falls are the leading cause of injury-related morbidity and mortality among older adults in the US. In 2018, 27.5% of community-dwelling adults 65 years or older reported at least 1 fall in the past year and 10.2% reported a fall-related injury. In 2021, an estimated 38 742 deaths resulted from fall-related injuries. Objective: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness and harms of primary care–relevant interventions to prevent falls and fall-related morbidity and mortality in community-dwelling adults 65 years or older. Population: Community-dwelling adults 65 years or older at increased risk of falls. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that exercise interventions provide a moderate net benefit in preventing falls and fall-related morbidity in older adults at increased risk for falls. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that multifactorial interventions provide a small net benefit in preventing falls and fall-related morbidity in older adults at increased risk for falls. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends exercise interventions to prevent falls in community-dwelling adults 65 years or older who are at increased risk for falls. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that clinicians individualize the decision to offer multifactorial interventions to prevent falls to community-dwelling adults 65 years or older who are at increased risk for falls. Existing evidence indicates that the overall net benefit of routinely offering multifactorial interventions to prevent falls is small. When determining whether this service is appropriate for an individual, patients and clinicians should consider the balance of benefits and harms based on the circumstances of prior falls, presence of comorbid medical conditions, and the patient's values and preferences. (C recommendation) This 2024 Recommendation Statement from the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends exercise interventions to prevent falls in community-dwelling adults 65 years or older who are at increased risk for falls (B recommendation) and that clinicians individualize the decision to offer multifactorial interventions to prevent falls in this population (C recommendation). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Among all US women, breast cancer is the second most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer death. In 2023, an estimated 43 170 women died of breast cancer. Non-Hispanic White women have the highest incidence of breast cancer and non-Hispanic Black women have the highest mortality rate. Objective: The USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different mammography-based breast cancer screening strategies by age to start and stop screening, screening interval, modality, use of supplemental imaging, or personalization of screening for breast cancer on the incidence of and progression to advanced breast cancer, breast cancer morbidity, and breast cancer–specific or all-cause mortality, and collaborative modeling studies to complement the evidence from the review. Population: Cisgender women and all other persons assigned female at birth aged 40 years or older at average risk of breast cancer. Evidence Assessment: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that biennial screening mammography in women aged 40 to 74 years has a moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older and the balance of benefits and harms of supplemental screening for breast cancer with breast ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), regardless of breast density. Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 40 to 74 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of supplemental screening for breast cancer using breast ultrasonography or MRI in women identified to have dense breasts on an otherwise negative screening mammogram. (I statement) This 2024 Recommendation Statement from the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 40 to 74 years (B recommendation) and concludes that evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older (I statement) and of screening using ultrasonography or MRI in women with dense breasts on a negative mammogram (I statement). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative hazards of acute and chronic diabetes complications among people with diabetes across the U.S. rural-urban continuum. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a deidentified data set of U.S. commercial and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, to follow 2,901,563 adults (age ≥18 years) with diabetes between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2021. We compared adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of diabetes complications in remote areas (population <2,500), small towns (population 2,500–50,000), and cities (population >50,000). RESULTS: Compared with residents of cities, residents of remote areas had greater hazards of myocardial infarction (HR 1.06 [95% CI 1.02–1.10]) and revascularization (HR 1.04 [1.02–1.06]) but lower hazards of hyperglycemia (HR 0.90 [0.83–0.98]) and stroke (HR 0.91 [0.88–0.95]). Compared with cities, residents of small towns had greater hazards of hyperglycemia (HR 1.06 [1.02–1.10]), hypoglycemia (HR 1.15 [1.12–1.18]), end-stage kidney disease (HR 1.04 [1.03–1.06]), myocardial infarction (HR 1.10 [1.08–1.12]), heart failure (HR 1.05 [1.03–1.06]), amputation (HR 1.05 [1.02–1.09]), other lower-extremity complications (HR 1.02 [1.01–1.03]), and revascularization (HR 1.05 [1.04–1.06]) but a smaller hazard of stroke (HR 0.95 [0.94–0.97]). Compared with small towns, residents of remote areas had lower hazards of hyperglycemia (HR 0.85 [0.78–0.93]), hypoglycemia (HR 0.92 [0.87–0.97]), and heart failure (HR 0.94 [0.91–0.97]). Hazards of retinopathy and atrial fibrillation/flutter did not vary geographically. CONCLUSIONS: Adults in small towns are disproportionately impacted by complications of diabetes. Future studies should probe for the reasons underlying these disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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) This 2024 Recommendation Statement from the US Preventive Services Task Force 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). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy and other adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) increase the risk of developing chronic hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Perceptions of stress and neighborhood context also influence blood pressure (BP) fluctuations. We examined if APOs, higher perceived stress, and neighborhood deprivation were associated with hypertension phenotypes a decade after pregnancy in untreated individuals. METHODS Participants were 360 individuals who gave birth between 2008 and 2009 and participated in a research study 8–10 years following pregnancy. Standardized office and home BP readings were obtained, and we applied the AHA/ACC 2017 guidelines to identify sustained, white coat, and masked hypertension phenotypes. We measured personal stress with the perceived stress scale and neighborhood deprivation with the CDC Social Vulnerability Index. RESULTS Of the 38.3% (138/360) with any hypertension, 26.1% (36/138) reported a diagnosis of hypertension but were currently untreated. Sustained hypertension was the most common (17.8%), followed by masked and white coat hypertension, both 10.3%. Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy were associated with sustained (odds ratio [OR] 5.54 [95% confidence interval, CI 2.46, 12.46] and white coat phenotypes (OR 4.20 [1.66, 10.60], but not masked hypertension (OR 1.74 [0.62, 4.90]). Giving birth to a small for gestational age infant was also associated with sustained hypertension. In covariate adjusted models, perceived stress, but not neighborhood deprivation, was significantly associated with masked hypertension. CONCLUSIONS A decade after delivery, APOs were associated with sustained and white coat hypertension, but not masked hypertension. Exploration of the mechanisms underlying, and clinical implications of, these associations is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are associated with cardiovascular disease; however, patterns of blood pressure (BP) recovery are understudied. We compared pregnancy and postpartum BP trajectories among individuals with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy who developed persistent hypertension at 1-year postpartum compared with individuals with normalization of BP. METHODS: We used data from a randomized clinical trial of individuals with overweight, obesity, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy conducted in the first year after delivery. Pregnancy BPs were obtained during prenatal visits; postpartum BPs were prospectively obtained through home monitoring. Demographic characteristics and trajectories were compared by hypertensive status (systolic BP ≥130 mm Hg, diastolic BP ≥80 mm Hg, or use of antihypertensive medications) at 1 year. We used repeated BP measures to fit separate mixed-effects linear regression models for pregnancy and postpartum using restricted cubic splines. RESULTS: We included 129 individuals; 75 (58%) individuals progressed to hypertension by 1-year postpartum. Individuals with hypertension were older, delivered at earlier gestational ages, and had higher body mass index at 1-year postpartum compared with those with normalization. Individuals with hypertension had similar BP trajectories during pregnancy to those with BP normalization but a significantly different BP trajectory (P<0.01 for systolic and diastolic BPs) in the first year postpartum. These differences persisted in multivariable models after adjustment for early pregnancy body mass index, age, and severity of hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (P<0.01 for systolic and diastolic BPs). CONCLUSIONS: BP trajectories in the first year postpartum, but not during pregnancy, may provide important information for risk stratification after a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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) This 2023 Recommendation Statement from the US Preventive Services Task Force 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). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectiveTo determine if race/ethnicity-based differences exist in the management of pediatric abdominal pain in emergency departments (EDs).MethodsSecondary analysis of data from the 2006-2009 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey regarding 2298 visits by patients ≤ 21 years old who presented to EDs with abdominal pain. Main outcomes were documentation of pain score and receipt of any analgesics, analgesics for severe pain (defined as ≥ 7 on a 10-point scale), and narcotic analgesics. Secondary outcomes included diagnostic tests obtained, length of stay (LOS), 72-hour return visits, and admission.ResultsOf patient visits, 70.1% were female, 52.6% were from non-Hispanic white, 23.5% were from non-Hispanic black, 20.6% were from Hispanic, and 3.3% were from "other" racial/ethnic groups; patients' mean age was 14.5 years. Multivariate logistic regression models adjusting for confounders revealed that non-Hispanic black patients were less likely to receive any analgesic (odds ratio [OR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43-0.87) or a narcotic analgesic (OR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.18-0.81) than non-Hispanic white patients (referent group). This finding was also true for non-Hispanic black and "other" race/ethnicity patients with severe pain (ORs [95% CI]: 0.43 [0.22-0.87] and 0.02 [0.00-0.19], respectively). Non-Hispanic black and Hispanic patients were more likely to have a prolonged LOS than non-Hispanic white patients (ORs [95% CI]: 1.68 [1.13-2.51] and 1.64 [1.09-2.47], respectively). No significant race/ethnicity-based disparities were identified in documentation of pain score, use of diagnostic procedures, 72-hour return visits, or hospital admissions.ConclusionsRace/ethnicity-based disparities exist in ED analgesic use and LOS for pediatric abdominal pain. Recognizing these disparities may help investigators eliminate inequalities in care.

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) This 2023 Recommendation Statement from the US Preventive Services Task Force concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening and preventive interventions performed by primary care clinicians for oral health conditions, including dental caries, in adults (I statement). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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) This 2023 Recommendation Statement from the US Preventive Services Task Force concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening and 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). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Accurate measurement of exclusive breastfeeding is important in maternal and child health research. Exclusive breastfeeding is often measured using the 24-hour recall or the since birth method for the first 6 months. These methods can produce different estimates, introducing problems in interpreting breastfeeding behavior and making accurate comparisons across settings or countries. Research Aim: Our aim was to compare the exclusive breastfeeding rates between the 24-hour recall and since birth methods among a diverse cohort of birthing people using the ecological momentary assessments method. In addition, we compared the exclusive breastfeeding rates between the two methods across race and other maternal characteristics. Methods: This study is a secondary analysis using data from the Postpartum Mothers Mobile Study (PMOMS), a prospective longitudinal study which recruited participants during pregnancy and followed them for 12 months after delivery. Participants completed surveys in real-time via ecological momentary assessment. Individual exclusive breastfeeding rates from months 1–6 were computed using 24-hour recall and since birth methods for 284 participants. We calculated the percentage point difference between the two methods across child age and maternal characteristics. We used a two-sample test of proportions to determine if the differences observed in the proportions were significant. Results: Exclusive breastfeeding rates from the 24-hour recall were higher than the since birth rates across all ages and maternal characteristics. The difference between the two methods at 3 months was 25.7 percentage points and at 6 months was a 17.2 percentage points. Irrespective of the method used to measure exclusive breastfeeding, White participants had higher exclusive breastfeeding rates than Black participants. Conclusion: The 24-hour recall and the since birth methods of assessing exclusive breastfeeding provided substantially different estimates. These findings highlight the importance of specificity in measuring and reporting exclusive breastfeeding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]