Challenges in Developing U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Child Health Recommendations

Measuring emotional well-being through subjective report: a scoping review of reviews

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review of reviews aims to describe the current landscape of measures of emotional well-being (EWB).

METHODS

Following established practices for scoping reviews, we searched the PsycInfo, ERIC, Scopus and PubMed databases in June and July 2021 for reviews of measures of EWB that described their review methods and psychometric properties of included measures. From each eligible article, two coders independently extracted the authors' (1) definition of EWB, (2) purpose for the review, (3) methods (eg, search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria), (4) identified measures (including any noted adaptations) and (5) the scope of psychometric information presented. Descriptive and content analyses were used to examine data.

RESULTS

Forty-nine reviews were included in this scoping review. Reviews included anywhere between 1 and 34 measures of EWB and 135 unique EWB measures were captured across all reviews. We found that there was no consistent definition of EWB, identified measures varied widely and reviews were published in a range of disciplines. Psychometric evidence varied as did authors' purposes for conducting the reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, these reviews suggest that literature on EWB measurement is disjointed and diffuse. Conceptual integration and harmonisation of measures is needed to advance knowledge of EWB and its measurement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

10.17605/OSF.IO/BQDS7 and 10.17605/OSF.IO/WV8PF.

A Window of Opportunity for Newborn Screening

Molecular diagnostics and therapies play a central role in an era of precision medicine, with the promise of more accurate diagnoses and more effective treatments. Universal newborn screening (NBS) identifies those health conditions that must be treated in early life and before clinical symptoms become apparent, to maximize effectiveness, prevent morbidity, and reduce or eliminate mortality. However, enthusiasm about NBS as the logical platform for early identification is tempered by the realization that NBS under public health authority exists in a complex ecology in which technology and medicine intersect with politics, ethics, advocacy, and resource constraints-a classic translational challenge that is exacerbated when considering the possible introduction of genome sequencing and molecular therapies in NBS. Substantial change is inevitable if the current model of NBS can be prepared for an envisioned future of greatly expanded molecular diagnostics and therapies. A window of opportunity for modernization now exists, but what changes are needed? The purpose of this commentary is to identify five major initiatives to stimulate focused discussion on how modernization might be achieved: (1) build systems for more rapid collection and integration of extant data relevant to NBS; (2) establish a national network of NBS research centers to design and conduct prospective research studies addressing critical NBS questions; (3) create a network of regional NBS laboratories to expedite state implementation of new methodologies or screening for newly recommended conditions; (4) establish a new stream of federal funding to provide financial support for states and incentivize national harmonization; and (5) integrate solutions in a way that is strategic and effective. Some aspects of these recommendations suggest that radical policy changes are needed to implement molecular testing in NBS and take advantage of emerging molecular therapies. I focus on recommendations for modernizing NBS in the US, some of which may be applicable in other countries.

Screening for Anxiety in Pediatric Primary Care: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Anxiety is common, screening tools are available, and treatment can be effective. Recently, anxiety screening has been recommended for adolescent girls beginning at 13 years of age.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the evidence regarding anxiety screening test accuracy in primary care for children and adolescents and assess the effectiveness of treatment of individuals identified through screening.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and references to potentially eligible studies cited in other articles.

STUDY SELECTION

Screening studies were included if they were conducted in primary care or a similar population and employed a reference standard based on DSM criteria. Treatment studies were included if subjects were identified through screening and there was at least 1 comparator intervention or a placebo arm.

DATA EXTRACTION

At least 2 reviewers evaluated each identified reference.

RESULTS

Two screening studies (1 with low risk of bias and 1 with high risk of bias) and 1 treatment study with a low risk of bias were included. The screening study with a low risk of bias reported a sensitivity of 56% and specificity of 80%. The treatment study found individual cognitive behavioral therapy to be effective for screen-detected adolescents with social phobia.

LIMITATIONS

This review only included screening or treatment studies with clear evidence that the study populations were derived from an unselected population reflective of typical primary care. Relevant studies not indexed in PubMed or the Cochrane library could have been missed.

CONCLUSIONS

There are significant gaps in evidence related to anxiety screening in the primary care setting.

An Ecological Model to Frame the Delivery of Pediatric Preventive Care

Screening and surveillance are integral aspects of child health promotion and disease prevention. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that primary care clinicians screen children and adolescents for a broad array of conditions, conduct surveillance of growth and development, identify social determinants of health, and identify protective and risk factors that might impact health over time. However, access to and outcomes of preventive services vary based on features of children’s social ecology, including family and community contexts. The proposed five-stage socio-ecological model considers multiple contextual dimensions of pediatric screening: (1) individual, (2) interpersonal, (3) organizational, (4) community/population, and (5) public policy. Incorporating this model into routine care might improve outcomes at the individual and population level. Future endeavors should focus on integration of this model with validated risk screening tools as part of a supportive electronic health record, culture, and incentive structure. Further research assessing the contributors and outcomes of differences in beliefs, resources, practices, and opportunities among individuals, families, providers, primary care organizations, communities, health systems, and policy partners will be essential in advancing knowledge and policies to improve preventive services delivery.

Half a Century of Wilson & Jungner: Reflections on the Governance of Population Screening

Background: In their landmark report on the "Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease" (1968), Wilson and Jungner noted that the practice of screening is just as important for securing beneficial outcomes and avoiding harms as the formulation of principles. Many jurisdictions have since established various kinds of "screening governance organizations" to provide oversight of screening practice. Yet to date there has been relatively little reflection on the nature and organization of screening governance itself, or on how different governance arrangements affect the way screening is implemented and perceived and the balance of benefits and harms it delivers. Methods: An international expert policy workshop convened by Sturdy, Miller and Hogarth. Results: While effective governance is essential to promote beneficial screening practices and avoid attendant harms, screening governance organizations face enduring challenges. These challenges are social and ethical as much as technical. Evidence-based adjudication of the benefits and harms of population screening must take account of factors that inform the production and interpretation of evidence, including the divergent professional, financial and personal commitments of stakeholders. Similarly, when planning and overseeing organized screening programs, screening governance organizations must persuade or compel multiple stakeholders to work together to a common end. Screening governance organizations in different jurisdictions vary widely in how they are constituted, how they relate to other interested organizations and actors, and what powers and authority they wield. Yet we know little about how these differences affect the way screening is implemented, and with what consequences. Conclusions: Systematic research into how screening governance is organized in different jurisdictions would facilitate policy learning to address enduring challenges. Even without such research, informal exchange and sharing of experiences between screening governance organizations can deliver invaluable insights into the social as well as the technical aspects of governance.

Half a Century of Wilson & Jungner: Reflections on the Governance of Population Screening

Background: In their landmark report on the “Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease” (1968), Wilson and Jungner noted that the practice of screening is just as important for securing beneficial outcomes and avoiding harms as the formulation of principles. Many jurisdictions have since established various kinds of “screening governance organizations” to provide oversight of screening practice. Yet to date there has been relatively little reflection on the nature and organization of screening governance itself, or on how different governance arrangements affect the way screening is implemented and perceived and the balance of benefits and harms it delivers. Methods: An international expert policy workshop convened by the three lead authors. Results: While effective governance is essential to promote beneficial screening practices and avoid attendant harms, screening governance organizations face enduring challenges. These challenges are social and ethical as much as technical. Evidence-based adjudication of the benefits and harms of population screening must take account of factors that inform the production and interpretation of evidence, including the divergent professional, financial and personal commitments of stakeholders. Similarly, when planning and overseeing organized screening programs, screening governance organizations must persuade or compel multiple stakeholders to work together to a common end. Screening governance organizations in different jurisdictions vary widely in how they are constituted, how they relate to other interested organizations and actors, and what powers and authority they wield. Yet we know little about how these differences affect the way screening is implemented, and with what consequences. Conclusions: Systematic research into how screening governance is organized in different jurisdictions would facilitate policy learning to address enduring challenges. Even without such research, informal exchange and sharing of experiences between screening governance organizations can deliver invaluable insights into the social as well as the technical aspects of governance.

Prevalence of hepatitis B virus among children of HBsAg-positive mothers in Hebron district, Palestine

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) is the major causative agent of chronic hepatitis causing liver cirrhosis and liver cancer. However, its transmission is likely to be minimized through vaccination. The study aims to determine the prevalence of hepatitis B among children born to hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) positive women in Hebron district/Palestine.

METHODS

The overall number of women enrolled in this study was 125, all children of these mothers [386] were tested, out of which 42 were HBsAg-positive. The recruited participants were asked about their socio-demographic details including age, place of residence, occupation, level of education, as well as questions related to expected route of exposure to the virus and the type of vaccination they provided to their newborns. The results were explained based on the descriptive statistics that included frequencies and percentages.

RESULTS

The results showed that the prevalence of HBsAg among children born to HBsAg-positive mothers was 10.9% (42 positive children out of 386). Moreover, (33.6%) of the HBsAg-positive women had family history of hepatitis B infection. Transmission of hepatitis B among children of HBsAg-positive mothers was found in the low socio-economic class in the rural areas.

CONCLUSIONS

The study concluded that the prevalence of HBsAg among children born to HBsAg-positive mothers was high among the families living in villages with low to moderate income.

Update on the Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Linking Intermediate Outcomes and Health Outcomes in Prevention

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is an independent body of experts who make evidence-based recommendations about clinical preventive services using a transparent and objective process. Developing recommendations on a clinical preventive service requires evidence of its effect on health outcomes. Health outcomes are symptoms, functional levels, and conditions that affect a patient's quantity or quality of life and are measured by assessments of physical or psychologic well-being. Intermediate outcomes are pathologic, physiologic, psychologic, social, or behavioral measures related to a preventive service. Given the frequent lack of evidence on health outcomes, the USPSTF uses evidence on intermediate outcomes when appropriate. The ultimate goal is to determine precisely a consistent relationship between the direction and magnitude of change in an intermediate outcome with a predictable resultant direction and magnitude of change in the health outcomes. The USPSTF reviewed its historical use of intermediate outcomes, reviewed methods of other evidence-based guideline-making bodies, consulted with other experts, and reviewed scientific literature. Most important were the established criteria for causation, tenets of evidence-based medicine, and consistency with its current standards. Studies that follow participants over time following early treatment, stratify patients according to treatment response, and adjust for important confounders can provide useful information about the association between intermediate and health outcomes. However, such studies remain susceptible to residual confounding. The USPSTF will exercise great caution when making a recommendation that depends on the evidence linking intermediate and health outcomes because of inherent evidence limitations.

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Priorities for Prevention Research

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) makes recommendations about clinical preventive services. The USPSTF examines chains of direct and indirect evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of a clinical preventive service. Missing links across the chains of evidence reflect gaps in the research. Evidence gaps can occur for preventive services that receive a letter grade recommendation and those that receive an I statement (insufficient evidence). This article describes the types of evidence gaps that the USPSTF encounters across its various recommendations and how the USPSTF identifies and communicates these gaps to researchers and policymakers, who can help generate the needed evidence. Common types of evidence gaps include limited evidence in primary care settings and populations, a lack of appropriate health outcomes, limited evidence linking behavior change to health outcomes, and a lack of evidence for effective preventive services in diverse populations. The USPSTF annual report to Congress focuses on the evidence gaps of new recommendations from the past year and is sent to leading research funding agencies. The Office of Disease Prevention at NIH uses this report to help direct future funding opportunities that may address these evidence gaps. The USPSTF plays a critical role in highlighting the information needed to advance the science to optimize the use of clinical preventive services in primary care.