E-cigarette, or Vaping, Product Use-Associated Lung Injury: Looking Back, Moving Forward

Implications In this commentary, we describe the evidence-based approach used to identify the primary cause of EVALI and to curb the 2019 outbreak. We also discuss future research opportunities and public health practice considerations to prevent a resurgence of EVALI.

Potential indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on use of emergency departments for acute life-threatening conditions - United States, January-May 2020

This article describes a significant decline in emergency department visits for acute life-threatening conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that patients may be delaying or avoiding care or unable to access care during the pandemic.

Potential Indirect Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Use of Emergency Departments for Acute Life-Threatening Conditions - United States, January-May 2020

On March 13, 2020, the United States declared a national emergency in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Subsequently, states enacted stay-at-home orders to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and reduce the burden on the U.S. health care system. CDC* and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)^† recommended that health care systems prioritize urgent visits and delay elective care to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in health care settings. By May 2020, national syndromic surveillance data found that emergency department (ED) visits had declined 42% during the early months of the pandemic (1). This report describes trends in ED visits for three acute life-threatening health conditions (myocardial infarction [MI, also known as heart attack], stroke, and hyperglycemic crisis), immediately before and after declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic as a national emergency. These conditions represent acute events that always necessitate immediate emergency care, even during a public health emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In the 10 weeks following the emergency declaration (March 15-May 23, 2020), ED visits declined 23% for MI, 20% for stroke, and 10% for hyperglycemic crisis, compared with the preceding 10-week period (January 5-March 14, 2020). EDs play a critical role in diagnosing and treating life-threatening conditions that might result in serious disability or death. Persons experiencing signs or symptoms of serious illness, such as severe chest pain, sudden or partial loss of motor function, altered mental state, signs of extreme hyperglycemia, or other life-threatening issues, should seek immediate emergency care, regardless of the pandemic. Clear, frequent, highly visible communication from public health and health care professionals is needed to reinforce the importance of timely care for medical emergencies and to assure the public that EDs are implementing infection prevention and control guidelines that help ensure the safety of their patients and health care personnel.

Characteristics of a Multistate Outbreak of Lung Injury Associated with E-cigarette Use, or Vaping - United States, 2019

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), also called vapes, e-hookas, vape pens, tank systems, mods, and electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), are electronic devices that produce an aerosol by heating a liquid typically containing nicotine, flavorings, and other additives; users inhale this aerosol into their lungs (1). E-cigarettes also can be used to deliver tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal psychoactive component of cannabis (1). Use of e-cigarettes is commonly called vaping. Lung injury associated with e-cigarette use, or vaping, has recently been reported in most states (2-4). CDC, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), state and local health departments, and others are investigating this outbreak. This report provides data on patterns of the outbreak and characteristics of patients, including sex, age, and selected substances used in e-cigarette, or vaping, products reported to CDC as part of this ongoing multistate investigation. As of September 24, 2019, 46 state health departments and one territorial health department had reported 805 patients with cases of lung injury associated with use of e-cigarette, or vaping, products to CDC. Sixty-nine percent of patients were males, and the median age was 23 years (range = 13-72 years). To date, 12 deaths have been confirmed in 10 states. Among 514 patients with information on substances used in e-cigarettes, or vaping products, in the 30 days preceding symptom onset, 76.9% reported using THC-containing products, and 56.8% reported using nicotine-containing products; 36.0% reported exclusive use of THC-containing products, and 16.0% reported exclusive use of nicotine-containing products. The specific chemical exposure(s) causing the outbreak is currently unknown. While this investigation is ongoing, CDC recommends that persons consider refraining from using e-cigarette, or vaping, products, particularly those containing THC. CDC will continue to work in collaboration with FDA and state and local partners to investigate cases and advise and alert the public on the investigation as additional information becomes available.

Severe Pulmonary Disease Associated with Electronic-Cigarette-Product Use - Interim Guidance

On September 6, 2019, this report was posted as an MMWR Early Release on the MMWR website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr). As of August 27, 2019, 215 possible cases of severe pulmonary disease associated with the use of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) products (e.g., devices, liquids, refill pods, and cartridges) had been reported to CDC by 25 state health departments. E-cigarettes are devices that produce an aerosol by heating a liquid containing various chemicals, including nicotine, flavorings, and other additives (e.g., propellants, solvents, and oils). Users inhale the aerosol, including any additives, into their lungs. Aerosols produced by e-cigarettes can contain harmful or potentially harmful substances, including heavy metals such as lead, volatile organic compounds, ultrafine particles, cancer-causing chemicals, or other agents such as chemicals used for cleaning the device (1). E-cigarettes also can be used to deliver tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal psychoactive component of cannabis, or other drugs; for example, "dabbing" involves superheating substances that contain high concentrations of THC and other plant compounds (e.g., cannabidiol) with the intent of inhaling the aerosol. E-cigarette users could potentially add other substances to the devices. This report summarizes available information and provides interim case definitions and guidance for reporting possible cases of severe pulmonary disease. The guidance in this report reflects data available as of September 6, 2019; guidance will be updated as additional information becomes available.

Report of the Office of Population Affairs' expert work group meeting on short birth spacing and adverse pregnancy outcomes: Methodological quality of existing studies and future directions for research

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that women wait at least 24 months after a livebirth before attempting a subsequent pregnancy to reduce the risk of adverse maternal, perinatal, and infant health outcomes. However, the applicability of the WHO recommendations for women in the United States is unclear, as breast feeding, nutrition, maternal age at first birth, and total fertility rate differs substantially between the United States and the low- and middle-resource countries upon which most of the evidence is based.

METHODS

To inform guideline development for birth spacing specific to women in the United States, the Office of Population Affairs (OPA) convened an expert work group meeting in Washington, DC, on 14-15 September 2017 among reproductive, perinatal, paediatric, social, and public health epidemiologists; obstetrician-gynaecologists; biostatisticians; and experts in evidence synthesis related to women's health.

RESULTS

Presentations and discussion topics included the methodological quality of existing studies, evaluation of the evidence for causal effects of short interpregnancy intervals on adverse perinatal and maternal health outcomes, good practices for future research, and identification of research gaps and priorities for future work.

CONCLUSIONS

This report provides an overview of the presentations, discussions, and conclusions from the expert work group meeting.

Good practices for the design, analysis, and interpretation of observational studies on birth spacing and perinatal health outcomes

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses of observational studies have shown that women with a shorter interpregnancy interval (the time from delivery to start of a subsequent pregnancy) are more likely to experience adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as preterm delivery or small for gestational age birth, than women who space their births further apart. However, the studies used to inform these estimates have methodological shortcomings.

METHODS

In this commentary, we summarise the discussions of an expert workgroup describing good practices for the design, analysis, and interpretation of observational studies of interpregnancy interval and adverse perinatal health outcomes.

RESULTS

We argue that inferences drawn from research in this field will be improved by careful attention to elements such as: (a) refining the research question to clarify whether the goal is to estimate a causal effect vs describe patterns of association; (b) using directed acyclic graphs to represent potential causal networks and guide the analytic plan of studies seeking to estimate causal effects; (c) assessing how miscarriages and pregnancy terminations may have influenced interpregnancy interval classifications; (d) specifying how key factors such as previous pregnancy loss, pregnancy intention, and maternal socio-economic position will be considered; and (e) examining if the association between interpregnancy interval and perinatal outcome differs by factors such as maternal age.

CONCLUSION

This commentary outlines the discussions of this recent expert workgroup, and describes several suggested principles for study design and analysis that could mitigate many potential sources of bias.

Implementation Research to Address the United States Health Disadvantage: Report of a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Workshop

Four decades ago, U.S. life expectancy was within the same range as other high-income peer countries. However, during the past decades, the United States has fared worse in many key health domains resulting in shorter life expectancy and poorer health-a health disadvantage. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a panel of national and international health experts and stakeholders for a Think Tank meeting to explore the U.S. health disadvantage and to seek specific recommendations for implementation research opportunities for heart, lung, blood, and sleep disorders. Recommendations for National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute consideration were made in several areas including understanding the drivers of the disadvantage, identifying potential solutions, creating strategic partnerships with common goals, and finally enhancing and fostering a research workforce for implementation research. Key recommendations included exploring why the United States is doing better for health indicators in a few areas compared with peer countries; targeting populations across the entire socioeconomic spectrum with interventions at all levels in order to prevent missing a substantial proportion of the disadvantage; assuring partnership have high-level goals that can create systemic change through collective impact; and finally, increasing opportunities for implementation research training to meet the current needs. Connecting with the research community at large and building on ongoing research efforts will be an important strategy. Broad partnerships and collaboration across the social, political, economic, and private sectors and all civil society will be critical-not only for implementation research but also for implementing the findings to have the desired population impact. Developing the relevant knowledge to tackle the U.S. health disadvantage is the necessary first step to improve U.S. health outcomes.

Prevention of chronic disease in the 21st century: elimination of the leading preventable causes of premature death and disability in the USA

With non-communicable conditions accounting for nearly two-thirds of deaths worldwide, the emergence of chronic diseases as the predominant challenge to global health is undisputed. In the USA, chronic diseases are the main causes of poor health, disability, and death, and account for most of health-care expenditures. The chronic disease burden in the USA largely results from a short list of risk factors--including tobacco use, poor diet and physical inactivity (both strongly associated with obesity), excessive alcohol consumption, uncontrolled high blood pressure, and hyperlipidaemia--that can be effectively addressed for individuals and populations. Increases in the burden of chronic diseases are attributable to incidence and prevalence of leading chronic conditions and risk factors (which occur individually and in combination), and population demographics, including ageing and health disparities. To effectively and equitably address the chronic disease burden, public health and health-care systems need to deploy integrated approaches that bundle strategies and interventions, address many risk factors and conditions simultaneously, create population-wide changes, help the population subgroups most affected, and rely on implementation by many sectors, including public-private partnerships and involvement from all stakeholders. To help to meet the chronic disease burden, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) uses four cross-cutting strategies: (1) epidemiology and surveillance to monitor trends and inform programmes; (2) environmental approaches that promote health and support healthy behaviours; (3) health system interventions to improve the effective use of clinical and other preventive services; and (4) community resources linked to clinical services that sustain improved management of chronic conditions. Establishment of community conditions to support healthy behaviours and promote effective management of chronic conditions will deliver healthier students to schools, healthier workers to employers and businesses, and a healthier population to the health-care system. Collectively, these four strategies will prevent the occurrence of chronic diseases, foster early detection and slow disease progression in people with chronic conditions, reduce complications, support an improved quality of life, and reduce demand on the health-care system. Of crucial importance, with strengthened collaboration between the public health and health-care sectors, the health-care system better uses prevention and early detection services, and population health is improved and sustained by solidifying collaborations between communities and health-care providers. This collaborative approach will improve health equity by building communities that promote health rather than disease, have more accessible and direct care, and focus the health-care system on improving population health.

Prevention of chronic disease in the 21st century: elimination of the leading preventable causes of premature death and disability in the USA

With non-communicable conditions accounting for nearly two-thirds of deaths worldwide, the emergence of chronic diseases as the predominant challenge to global health is undisputed. In the USA, chronic diseases are the main causes of poor health, disability, and death, and account for most of health-care expenditures. The chronic disease burden in the USA largely results from a short list of risk factors--including tobacco use, poor diet and physical inactivity (both strongly associated with obesity), excessive alcohol consumption, uncontrolled high blood pressure, and hyperlipidaemia--that can be effectively addressed for individuals and populations. Increases in the burden of chronic diseases are attributable to incidence and prevalence of leading chronic conditions and risk factors (which occur individually and in combination), and population demographics, including ageing and health disparities. To effectively and equitably address the chronic disease burden, public health and health-care systems need to deploy integrated approaches that bundle strategies and interventions, address many risk factors and conditions simultaneously, create population-wide changes, help the population subgroups most affected, and rely on implementation by many sectors, including public-private partnerships and involvement from all stakeholders. To help to meet the chronic disease burden, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) uses four cross-cutting strategies: (1) epidemiology and surveillance to monitor trends and inform programmes; (2) environmental approaches that promote health and support healthy behaviours; (3) health system interventions to improve the effective use of clinical and other preventive services; and (4) community resources linked to clinical services that sustain improved management of chronic conditions. Establishment of community conditions to support healthy behaviours and promote effective management of chronic conditions will deliver healthier students to schools, healthier workers to employers and businesses, and a healthier population to the health-care system. Collectively, these four strategies will prevent the occurrence of chronic diseases, foster early detection and slow disease progression in people with chronic conditions, reduce complications, support an improved quality of life, and reduce demand on the health-care system. Of crucial importance, with strengthened collaboration between the public health and health-care sectors, the health-care system better uses prevention and early detection services, and population health is improved and sustained by solidifying collaborations between communities and health-care providers. This collaborative approach will improve health equity by building communities that promote health rather than disease, have more accessible and direct care, and focus the health-care system on improving population health.

The scientific basis for law as a public health tool

Systematic reviews are generating valuable scientific knowledge about the impact of public health laws, but this knowledge is not readily accessible to policy makers. We identified 65 systematic reviews of studies on the effectiveness of 52 public health laws: 27 of those laws were found effective, 23 had insufficient evidence to judge effectiveness, 1 was harmful, and 1 was found to be ineffective. This is a valuable, scientific foundation-that uses the highest relevant standard of evidence-for the role of law as a public health tool. Additional primary studies and systematic reviews are needed to address significant gaps in knowledge about the laws' public health impact, as are energetic, sustained initiatives to make the findings available to public policy makers.

Client-directed interventions to increase community demand for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening a systematic review

Most major medical organizations recommend routine screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. Screening can lead to early detection of these cancers, resulting in reduced mortality. Yet not all people who should be screened are screened, either regularly or, in some cases, ever. This report presents the results of systematic reviews of effectiveness, applicability, economic efficiency, barriers to implementation, and other harms or benefits of interventions designed to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by increasing community demand for these services. Evidence from these reviews indicates that screening for breast cancer (mammography) and cervical cancer (Pap test) has been effectively increased by use of client reminders, small media, and one-on-one education. Screening for colorectal cancer by fecal occult blood test has been increased effectively by use of client reminders and small media. Additional research is needed to determine whether client incentives, group education, and mass media are effective in increasing use of any of the three screening tests; whether one-on-one education increases screening for colorectal cancer; and whether any demand-enhancing interventions are effective in increasing the use of other colorectal cancer screening procedures (i.e., flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, double contrast barium enema). Specific areas for further research are also suggested in this report.

Assessing information and best practices for public health emergency legal preparedness

Information is the fourth core element of public health legal preparedness and of legal preparedness for public health emergencies specifically. Clearly, the creation, transmittal, and application of information are vital to all public health endeavors. The critical significance of information grows exponentially as the complexity and scale of public threats increase.

Only a small body of organized information on public health law existed before the 21st century: a series of landmark books published beginning in 1926 by Tobey, Grad (1965), and Wing (1974); model public health laws published as early as 1907; systematic reviews of original research studies published in the 1990s; and a small but growing number of articles published in public health journals and law reviews.

With the new century came new public health law programs and activities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in public health professional associations, and in numerous non-profit and academic organizations.

Integrating evidence-based clinical and community strategies to improve health

Multiple and diverse preventive strategies in clinical and community settings are necessary to improve health. This paper (1) introduces evidence-based recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Community Task Force sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (2) examines, using a social-ecologic model, the evidence-based strategies for use in clinical and community settings to address preventable health-related problems such as tobacco use and obesity, and (3) advocates for prioritization and integration of clinical and community preventive strategies in the planning of programs and policy development, calling for additional research to develop the strategies and systems needed to integrate them.

Promoting evidence-based public health policy: can we have better evidence and more action?

Evidence-based approaches (those explicitly linked to the best available scientific evidence and reflecting community preferences and feasibility) are increasingly used to inform health policy decision making on the burden of a disease attributable to particular causes, interventions and policies that might work to confront those causes, and issues of community fit and feasibility. This paper introduces several tools for evidence-based public health: the health impact assessment, the systematic review, and a portfolio for assuring community fit and feasibility. Discussion of these tools serves as a springboard to consider how to better bring scientific evidence to bear on real-life health issues.

Interventions to prevent skin cancer by reducing exposure to ultraviolet radiation: a systematic review

The relationship between skin cancer and ultraviolet radiation is well established. Behaviors such as seeking shade, avoiding sun exposure during peak hours of radiation, wearing protective clothing, or some combination of these behaviors can provide protection. Sunscreen use alone is not considered an adequate protection against ultraviolet radiation. This report presents the results of systematic reviews of effectiveness, applicability, other harms or benefits, economic evaluations, and barriers to use of selected interventions to prevent skin cancer by reducing exposure to ultraviolet radiation. The Task Force on Community Preventive Services found that education and policy approaches to increasing sun-protective behaviors were effective when implemented in primary schools and in recreational or tourism settings, but found insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness when implemented in other settings, such as child care centers, secondary schools and colleges, and occupational settings. They also found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of interventions oriented to healthcare settings and providers, media campaigns alone, interventions oriented to parents or caregivers of children, and community-wide multicomponent interventions. The report also provides suggestions for areas for future research.

Promoting cancer screening: Learning from experience

This article provides an overview of behavioral and social science cancer screening intervention research and introduces the scope of topics addressed in this supplement to Cancer. The authors identify and address issues to consider before conducting interventions to promote the uptake of screening tests, such as the benefits and harms associated with screening. Trends in the use of cancer screening tests are discussed in the context of their efficacy and adoption over time. Both the development and breadth of social and behavioral intervention research intended to increase the use of effective tests are reviewed as background for the articles that follow. The application of the lessons from this extensive knowledge base not only should accelerate the uptake of the effective cancer screening tests currently available, but also can guide future directions for research.

Informed decision making: what is its role in cancer screening?

Interest in informed decision making (IDM) has grown in recent years. Greater patient involvement in decision making is consistent with recommendations to improve health care quality. This report provides an overview of IDM; clarifies the differences between IDM, shared decision making (SDM), and informed consent; and reviews the evidence to date about IDM for cancer screening. The authors also make recommendations for research. We define IDM as occurring when an individual understands the disease or condition being addressed and comprehends what the clinical service involves, including its benefits, risks, limitations, alternatives, and uncertainties; has considered his or her preferences and makes a decision consistent with them; and believes he or she has participated in decision making at the level desired. IDM interventions are used to facilitate informed decisions. The authors reviewed the evidence to date for IDM and cancer screening based primarily on published meta-analyses and a recent report for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Guide to Community Preventive Services. IDM and SDM interventions, such as decision aids, result in improved knowledge, beliefs, risk perceptions, and combinations of these. Little or no evidence exists, however, regarding whether these interventions result in 1) participation in decision making at a level consistent with patient preferences or 2) effects on patient satisfaction with the decision-making process. These variables generally either were not assessed or were not reported in the articles reviewed. Results of interventions on uptake of screening were variable. After exposure to IDM/SDM interventions, most studies showed small decreases in prostate cancer screening, whereas four studies on breast and colorectal cancer screening showed small increases. Few data are available by which to evaluate current practices in cancer screening IDM. Patient participation in IDM should be facilitated for those who prefer it. More research is needed to assess the benefits of IDM/SDM interventions and to tailor interventions to individuals who are most likely to desire and benefit from them. There are many system barriers to IDM/SDM and few tools. More work is needed in this area as well. In addition, research is needed to learn how to incorporate IDM into ongoing clinical practice and to determine whether there are unintended negative consequences of IDM.

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations

Users of clinical practice guidelines and other recommendations need to know how much confidence they can place in the recommendations. Systematic and explicit methods of making judgments can reduce errors and improve communication. We have developed a system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts. In this article we present a summary of our approach from the perspective of a guideline user. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation require consideration of the balance between benefits and harms, the quality of the evidence, translation of the evidence into specific circumstances, and the certainty of the baseline risk. It is also important to consider costs (resource utilisation) before making a recommendation. Inconsistencies among systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations reduce their potential to facilitate critical appraisal and improve communication of these judgments. Our system for guiding these complex judgments balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues.

Developing and using the Guide to Community Preventive Services: lessons learned about evidence-based public health

The Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide) is being developed under the leadership of the independent, nonfederal Task Force on Community Preventive Services. The Task Force makes recommendations for the use of public health programs and policies based on scientific evidence about what practices have worked to improve health. The Community Guide thoroughly searches scientific literature for topic-relevant studies, evaluates their quality according to established criteria, and makes recommendations based on the overall strength of the body of evidence and the size and variability of reported effects. In addition, the Community Guide identifies promising interventions that have not been adequately researched, thus helping to inform the public health research agenda. The continuously updated and expanded body of recommendations and research agenda formulated by this rigorous process have been published on the Internet and in various publications since 1999 and constitute a highly valued and objective evidence-based resource for guiding current and future public health activities. More remains to be learned, however, on how best to disseminate Community Guide findings to key target audiences and encourage their use to inform practice, policy, and additional research.

Examining the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening promotion

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) can help to quantify the contribution of the promotion of a screening program to increased participation in screening. The cost-effectiveness (C/E) of screening promotion depends in large part on the endpoints of interest. At the most fundamental level, the C/E of a strategy for promoting screening would focus on the attendance rate, or cost per person screened, and the C/E would be influenced by the costs of promotion, as well as by the size and responsiveness of the target population. In addition, the costs of screening promotion (measured as the cost per additional participant in screening) can be included in a CEA estimate of the screening technology. In this case, depending on the efficacy of the screening test and the costs and influence of the promotion, the C/E of screening may improve or become poorer. In the current study, the authors reviewed the literature on the C/E of cancer screening promotion. The following lessons were learned regarding the C/E of screening and its promotion: 1) high-quality information on the C/E of screening is increasingly available; 2) cost-effective promotion of screening is dependent on cost-effective screening strategies; 3) quality-of-life effects may be important in assessing the overall C/E of screening programs; 4) research efforts aimed at identifying cost-effective approaches to screening promotion are useful but sparse; 5) C/E studies should be better incorporated into well designed effectiveness research efforts; 6) variations in C/E according to intervention characteristics, population characteristics, and context should be evaluated in greater depth; 7) the long-term effects of screening promotion are critical to assessing C/E; 8) the effects of promotion on costs of screening must be better understood; and 9) CEA must be interpreted in light of other information. The authors showed that CEA can be a valuable tool for understanding the merits of health promotion interventions and that CEA is particularly valuable in identifying screening strategies that might be promoted most cost-effectively.

Some methodologic lessons learned from cancer screening research

Credible and useful methodologic evaluations are essential for increasing the uptake of effective cancer screening tests. In the current article, the authors discuss selected issues that are related to conducting behavior change interventions in cancer screening research and that may assist researchers in better designing future evaluations to increase the credibility and usefulness of such interventions. Selection and measurement of the primary outcome variable (i.e., cancer screening behavior) are discussed in detail. The report also addresses other aspects of study design and execution, including alternatives to the randomized controlled trial, indicators of study quality, and external validity. The authors conclude that the uptake of screening should be the main outcome when evaluating cancer screening strategies; that researchers should agree on definitions and measures of cancer screening behaviors and assess the reliability and validity of these definitions and measures in different populations and settings; and that the development of methods for increasing the external validity of randomized designs and reducing bias in nonrandomized studies is needed.

The future of research that promotes cancer screening

The authors draw on the lessons highlighted in preceding articles in the current supplement to provide recommendations for cancer screening intervention research and to highlight some of the many questions that will require further investigation.

Nonadherence to breast and cervical cancer screening: what are the linkages to chronic disease risk?

BACKGROUND

Several preventive practices that reduce chronic disease risk have been associated with breast and cervical cancer screening, including maintenance of normal weight and avoidance of cigarette smoking. A history of certain chronic illnesses such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease has also been related to cancer screening. Nevertheless, studies that have attempted to identify women who are less likely to have had a recent breast or cervical cancer screening test have infrequently examined the associations of breast and cervical cancer screening with multiple health factors that influence chronic disease risk.

METHODS

To clarify relationships between cancer screening and health behaviors and other factors that influence chronic disease risk, we examined the self-reported breast and cervical cancer screening practices of women in the United States by using data from the 1999 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. The women were described according to their recent use of mammography and the Papanicolaou test, physician visits within the past year, health insurance coverage, and preventive practices that reduce chronic disease risk.

RESULTS

Overall, 74.5% (95% CI, 73.9%-75.1%) of the women in this sample aged 40 years or older (n = 56,528) had received a mammogram within the past 2 years. The percentage of women who had been screened for breast cancer, however, varied widely by factors associated with reducing the risk of chronic disease (e.g., cholesterol check in the past 2 years, blood pressure check in the past 2 years, normal weight, avoidance of cigarette smoking) and having access to health care (e.g., health insurance coverage, recent physician visit). Similarly, 84.4% (95% CI, 83.9%-84.9%) of all women aged 18 years or older who had not undergone a hysterectomy (n = 69,113) had received a Papanicolaou test in the past 3 years, and factors associated with reduced chronic disease risk and health care access were related to having had a recent Papanicolaou test.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that underscreened women who are at risk for breast and cervical cancer are likely to benefit from programs that identify and address coexisting prevention needs. The identification of coexisting prevention needs might assist in developing interventions that address multiple risks for chronic disease among women and might subsequently help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of prevention programs.

A comparison of review methods in tobacco prevention and control guidelines

OBJECTIVES

To compare methods and conclusions of selected guidelines evaluating youth tobacco interventions.

METHODS

Eight reviews were compared regarding (a) search and assessment of evidence, (b) translation into recommendations, and (c) conclusions regarding tobacco cessation among youth.

RESULTS

Narrative and systematic review methods were employed. Five systematic reviews adopted different (a) criteria for study inclusion, (b) methods estimating summary outcome measurements, and (c) standards for concluding on the evidence of effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence reviews provide useful summaries, conclusions, and recommendations. Youth Tobacco Cessation: A Guide for Making Informed Decisions provides an inital systematic review of the evidence on effectiveness of youth tobacco use.

Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke

This report presents the results of systematic reviews of effectiveness, applicability, other effects, economic evaluations, and barriers to use of selected population-based interventions intended to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. The related systematic reviews are linked by a common conceptual approach. These reviews form the basis of recommendations by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (TFCPS) regarding the use of these selected interventions. The TFCPS recommendations are presented on page 67 of this supplement.