Prediabetes and Diabetes Screening Eligibility and Detection in US Adults After Changes to US Preventive Services Task Force and American Diabetes Association Recommendations.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fang M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9115610 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Prediabetes and Diabetes Screening Eligibility and Detection in US Adults After Changes to US Preventive Services Task Force and American Diabetes Association Recommendations.
Fang Michael M Wang Dan D Echouffo-Tcheugui Justin B JB Selvin Elizabeth E
JAMA 20220501 19
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionPrior studies suggest overuse of nonrecommended lung cancer screening tests in U.S. community practice and underuse of recommended tests.MethodsData from the 2010 and 2015 National Health Interview Surveys was analyzed from 2016 to 2018. Prevalence, populations, and number of chest computed tomography (CT) and chest x-ray tests were estimated for people who did and did not meet U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for lung cancer screening, among people aged ≥40 years without lung cancer.ResultsIn 2015, among those who met USPSTF criteria, 4.4% (95% CI=3.0%, 6.6%), or 360,000 (95% CI=240,000, 535,000) people reported lung cancer screening with a chest CT; and 8.5% (95% CI=6.5%, 11.1%), or 689,000 (95% CI=526,000, 898,000) people reported a chest x ray. Among those who did not meet USPSTF criteria, 2.3% (95% CI=2.0%, 2.6%), or 3,259,000 (95% CI=2,850,000, 3,724,000) people reported a chest x ray; and 1.3% (95% CI=1.1%, 1.5%), or 1,806,000 (95% CI=1,495,000, 2,173,000) people reported a chest CT. The estimated population meeting USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening in 2015 was 8,098,000 (95% CI=7,533,000, 8,702,000), which was smaller than the 9,620,000 people (95% CI=8,960,000, 10,325,000) in 2010.ConclusionsThe number of adults inappropriately screened for lung cancer greatly exceeds the number screened according to USPSTF recommendations, the prevalence of appropriate lung cancer screening is low, and the population meeting USPSTF criteria is shrinking. To realize the potential benefits of screening, better processes to appropriately triage eligible individuals to screening, plus screening with a USPSTF-recommended test, would be beneficial.
| S-EPMC6319382 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAlthough there is general agreement among various guidelines on benefits of routine screening mammography, the age of screening initiation and the optimal frequency of the test remain controversial. In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against routine breast cancer screening in women aged younger than 50 years. In this study, screening mammography guideline adherence among U.S. women is explored by examining patterns in rates of mammography age of initiation and utilization in years prior to and following the 2009 USPSTF guideline implementation.MethodsU.S. population-based data from the 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys were used to measure the overall proportion and rate of change in the proportion of women who underwent screening mammography within the last year, by age and survey year. Data were accessed and analyzed in July 2014.ResultsRates of mammography screening were lower in 2010 and 2012 compared with 2007 and 2008 (p<0.0001). The rate of screening initiation at age 40 years increased over time and was the highest in the years following USPSTF guideline changes (p=0.012).ConclusionsThese data support no perceptible change in U.S. women's patterns of screening mammography age at initiation within 3 years of the USPSTF guideline revision. Whether this finding reflects a delayed effect of guideline revision in population trends or rather health provider practice and patient preference for more frequent screening is unclear and requires further investigation.
| S-EPMC4546897 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated its recommendation to expand lung cancer screening (LCS) eligibility and mitigate disparities. Although this increased the number of non-White individuals who are eligible for LCS, the update's impact on drivers of disparities is less clear. This analysis focuses on racial disparities among Black individuals because members of this group disproportionately share late-stage lung cancer diagnoses, despite typically having a lower intensity smoking history compared to non-Hispanic White individuals.MethodsWe used data from the National Health Interview Survey to examine the impact of the 2021 eligibility criteria on racial disparities by factors such as education, poverty, employment history, and insurance status. We also examined preventive care use and reasons for delaying medical care.ResultsWhen comparing Black individuals and non-Hispanic White individuals, our analyses show significant differences in who would be eligible for LCS: Those who do not have a high school diploma (28.7% vs. 17.0%, p = 0.002), are in poverty (26.2% vs. 14.9%, p < 0.001), and have not worked in the past 12 months (66.5% vs. 53.9%, p = 0.009). Further, our analyses also show that more Black individuals delayed medical care due to not having transportation (11.1% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.001) compared to non-Hispanic White individuals.ConclusionsOur results suggest that despite increasing the number of Black individuals who are eligible for LCS, the 2021 USPSTF recommendation highlights ongoing socioeconomic disparities that need to be addressed to ensure equitable access.
| S-EPMC9972155 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies reported that prostate cancer incidence rates in the United States declined for local-stage disease and increased for regional- and distant-stage disease following the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against prostate-specific antigen-based screening for men aged 75 years and older in 2008 and for all men in 2012. It is unknown, however, whether these patterns persisted through 2016.MethodsBased on the US Cancer Statistics Public Use Research Database, we examined temporal trends in invasive prostate cancer incidence from 2005 to 2016 in men aged 50 years and older stratified by stage (local, regional, and distant), age group (50-74 years and 75 years and older), and race and ethnicity (all races and ethnicities, non-Hispanic Whites, and non-Hispanic Blacks) with joinpoint regression models to estimate annual percent changes. Tests of statistical significance are 2-sided (P < .05).ResultsFor all races and ethnicities combined, incidence for local-stage disease declined beginning in 2007 in men aged 50-74 years and 75 years and older, although the decline stabilized during 2013-2016 in men aged 75 years and older. Incidence decreased by 6.4% (95% CI = 4.9%-9% to 7.9%) per year from 2007 to 2016 in men aged 50-74 years and by 10.7% (95% CI = 6.2% to 15.0%) per year from 2007 to 2013 in men aged 75 years and older. In contrast, incidence for regional- and distant-stage disease increased in both age groups during the study period. For example, distant-stage incidence in men aged 75 years and older increased by 5.2% (95% CI = 4.2% to 6.1%) per year from 2010 to 2016.ConclusionsRegional- and distant-stage prostate cancer incidence continue to increase in the United States in men aged 50 years and older, and future studies are needed to identify reasons for the rising trends.
| S-EPMC7781461 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceLung cancer incidence and mortality have disproportionate consequences for racial and ethnic minority populations. The extent to which the 2021 changes to the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening guidelines have reduced the racial disparity gap in lung cancer screening eligibility is not known.ObjectiveTo assess the consequences of the changes in USPSTF low-dose computed tomography eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening between 2013 and 2021 among Black and White community-dwelling adults.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study analyzed data from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke study, a prospective longitudinal cohort study of community-dwelling Black and White adults 45 years and older who were initially recruited across the US between January 2003 and October 2007, with ongoing follow-up. All participants who would have been potentially eligible for lung cancer screening based on the 2021 USPSTF guidelines (N = 14 285) were included. Follow-up data for the current cohort study were collected and analyzed between January 2013 and December 2017, with final analysis performed in 2021.ExposuresSelf-reported Black vs White race.Primary outcomes and measuresDifferences in the proportion of Black vs White participants eligible for lung cancer screening according to 2013 and 2021 guidelines were assessed using modified Poisson models with robust SEs. Associations between important covariates (demographic characteristics and social factors associated with health), including interaction and dissimilarity indices (2 measures of residential segregation), and differences in screening eligibility were also examined.ResultsAmong 14 285 participants (mean [SD] age, 64.7 [7.5] years; 7675 men [53.7%]), 5787 (40.5%) self-identified as Black and 8498 (59.5%) as White. Based on the 2013 USPSTF guidelines, 1109 of 5787 Black participants (19.2%) and 2313 of 8498 White participants (27.2%) were eligible for lung cancer screening (difference, -8.06 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.44 to -6.67 percentage points). Based on the 2021 guidelines, 1667 of 5787 Black participants (28.8%) and 2940 of 8498 White participants (34.6%) were eligible for screening (difference, -5.73 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.28 to -4.19 percentage points). After adjustment for differences in individual characteristics and residential segregation, the 2013 difference in screening eligibility among Black vs White participants was -12.66 percentage points (95% CI, -14.71 to -10.61 percentage points), and the 2021 difference was -12.15 percentage points (95% CI, -14.37 to -9.93 percentage points).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, 2021 changes to the USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines were associated with reductions in but not elimination of existing eligibility disparities in lung cancer screening among Black and White adults. These findings suggest that accounting for factors beyond age and pack-years of smoking is needed when tailoring guidelines to improve screening eligibility among groups at high risk of lung cancer.
| S-EPMC9440399 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the effect of a change in U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) screening guidelines on mammography rates in the United States.Principal findingsIn 2010, the year following the change in guidelines, 12-month mammography prevalence among women aged 40-49 years fell by 2.09 percentage points (95 percent confidence interval [CI]: -2.87 to -1.31) from 54.63 percent in 2008. For women aged 50-74 years, and aged 75 years and older, 12-month screening rates were 2.21 (95 percent CI: -2.65 to -1.77) and 3.60 (95 percent CI: -4.48 to -2.70) percentage points lower than those in 2008. In 2012, for women aged 40-49 years, 12-month prevalence fell to 52.51 percent, a decline of 2.12 percentage points (95 percent CI: -2.79 to -1.32) relative to screening rates prior the USPSTF announcement. For women aged 50-74 years and aged 75 years and older screening rates were 2.45 (95 percent CI: -2.96 to -2.07) and 5.71 (95 percent CI: -6.61 to -4.81) percentage points lower, respectively, in 2012 than in 2008.ConclusionThis study demonstrates an immediate and lasting reduction in the rates of breast cancer screening among women of all age groups after the 2009 revision of screening guidelines by the USPSTF.
| S-EPMC4946042 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine public and media response to the draft (October 2011) and finalised (May 2012) recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing via Twitter, a popular social network with over 200 million active users.Materials and methodsWe used a mixed-methods design to analyse posts on Twitter, known as 'tweets'. Using the search term 'prostate cancer', we archived tweets in the 24-h periods following the release of both the draft and the finalised USPSTF recommendations. We recorded tweet rate per h and developed a coding system to assess the type of user and sentiment expressed in tweets and linked articles.ResultsAfter the draft and finalised USPSTF recommendations were released, 2042 and 5357 tweets focused on the USPSTF report, respectively. The tweet rate nearly doubled within 2 h of both announcements. Fewer than 10% of tweets expressed an opinion about screening, and the majority of these were pro-screening during both periods. By contrast, anti-screening articles were tweeted more frequently in both the draft and finalised study periods. Between the draft and the finalised recommendations, the proportion of anti-screening tweets and anti-screening article links increased (P = 0.03 and P < 0.01, respectively).ConclusionsThere was increased Twitter activity surrounding the USPSTF draft and finalised recommendations. The percentage of anti-screening tweets and articles appeared to increase, perhaps due to the interval public comment period. Despite this, most tweets did not express an opinion, suggesting a missed opportunity in this important arena for advocacy.
| S-EPMC4216238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThere are important differences among guideline recommendations for using statin therapy in primary prevention. New recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) emphasize therapy based on the presence of 1 or more cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors and a 10-year global CVD risk of 10% or greater.ObjectiveTo determine the difference in eligibility for primary prevention statin treatment among US adults, assuming full application of USPSTF recommendations compared with the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines.Design, setting, and participantsNational Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data (2009-2014) were used to assess statin eligibility under the 2016 USPSTF recommendations vs the 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol guidelines among a nationally representative sample of 3416 US adults aged 40 to 75 years with fasting lipid data and triglyceride levels of 400 mg/dL or less, without prior CVD.ExposuresThe 2016 USPSTF recommendations vs 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines.Main outcomes and measuresEligibility for primary prevention statin therapy.ResultsAmong the US primary prevention population represented by 3416 individuals in NHANES, the median weighted age was 53 years (interquartile range, 46-61), and 53% (95% CI, 52%-55%) were women. Along with the 21.5% (95% CI, 19.3%-23.7%) of patients who reported currently taking lipid-lowering medication, full implementation of the USPSTF recommendations would be associated with initiation of statin therapy in an additional 15.8% (95% CI, 14.0%-17.5%) of patients, compared with an additional 24.3% (95% CI, 22.3%-26.3%) of patients who would be recommended for statin initiation under full implementation of the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines. Among the 8.9% of individuals in the primary prevention population who would be recommended for statins by ACC/AHA guidelines but not by USPSTF recommendations, 55% would be adults aged 40 to 59 years with a mean 30-year cardiovascular risk greater than 30%, and 28% would have diabetes.Conclusions and relevanceIn this sample of US adults from 2009-2014, adherence to the 2016 USPSTF recommendations for statin therapy, compared with the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines, could lead to a lower number of individuals recommended for primary prevention statin therapy, including many younger adults with high mean long-term CVD risk.
| S-EPMC5470349 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is an independent body that makes evidence-based recommendations regarding preventive services to improve health for people nationwide. Here, we summarize current USPSTF methods, describe how methods are evolving to address preventive health equity, and define evidence gaps for future research.MethodsWe summarize current USPSTF methods as well as ongoing methods development.ResultsThe USPSTF prioritizes topics on the basis of disease burden, extent of new evidence, and whether the service can be provided in primary care and going forward will increasingly consider health equity. Analytic frameworks specify the key questions and linkages connecting the preventive service to health outcomes. Contextual questions provide information on natural history, current practice, health outcomes in high-risk groups, and health equity. The USPSTF assigns a level of certainty to the estimate of net benefit of a preventive service (high, moderate, or low). The magnitude of net benefit is also judged (substantial, moderate, small, or zero/negative). The USPSTF uses these assessments to assign a letter grade from A (recommend) to D (recommend against). I statements are issued when evidence is insufficient.ConclusionsThe USPSTF will continue to evolve its methods for simulation modeling and to use evidence to address conditions for which there are limited data for population groups who bear a disproportionate burden of disease. Additional pilot work is underway to better understand the relations of the social constructs of race, ethnicity, and gender with health outcomes to inform the development of a USPSTF health equity framework.
| S-EPMC10042553 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recently, health screening recommendations have gone beyond screening for early-stage, asymptomatic disease to include "screening" for presently experienced health problems and symptoms using self-report questionnaires. We examined recommendations from three major national guideline organizations to determine the consistency of recommendations, identify sources of divergent recommendations, and determine if guideline organizations have identified any direct randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence for the effectiveness of questionnaire-based screening.We reviewed recommendation statements listed by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC), the United Kingdom National Screening Committee (UKNSC), and the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) as of 5 September 2016. Eligible recommendations focused on using self-report questionnaires to identify patients with presently experienced health problems or symptoms. Within each recommendation and accompanying evidence review we identified screening RCTs.We identified 22 separate recommendations on questionnaire-based screening, including three CTFPHC recommendations against screening, eight UKNSC recommendations against screening, four USPSTF recommendations in favor of screening (alcohol misuse, adolescent depression, adult depression, intimate partner violence), and seven USPSTF recommendations that did not recommend for or against screening. In the four cases where the USPSTF recommended screening, either the CTFPHC, the UKNSC, or both recommended against. When recommendations diverged, the USPSTF expressed confidence in benefits based on indirect evidence, evaluated potential harms as minimal, and did not consider cost or resource use. CTFPHC and UKNSC recommendations against screening, on the other hand, focused on the lack of direct evidence of benefit and raised concerns about harms to patients and resource use. Of six RCTs that directly evaluated screening interventions, five did not report any statistically significant primary or secondary health outcomes in favor of screening, and one trial reported equivocal results.Only the USPSTF has made any recommendations for screening with questionnaires for presently experienced problems or symptoms. The CTFPHC and UKNSC recommended against screening in all of their recommendations. Differences in recommendations appear to reflect differences in willingness to assume benefit from indirect evidence and different approaches to assessing possible harms and resource consumption. There were no examples in any recommendations of RCTs with direct evidence of improved health outcomes.
| S-EPMC5549533 | biostudies-other