OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a clinic-based screening and referral system (Well Child Care, Evaluation, Community Resources, Advocacy, Referral, Education [WE CARE]) on families' receipt of community-based resources for unmet basic needs. METHODS:We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial at 8 urban community health centers, recruiting mothers of healthy infants. In the 4 WE CARE clinics, mothers completed a self-report screening instrument that assessed needs for child care, education, employment, food security, household heat, and housing. Providers made referrals for families; staff provided requisite applications and telephoned referred mothers within 1 month. Families at the 4 control community health centers received the usual care. We analyzed the results with generalized mixed-effect models.RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-six mothers were enrolled in the study (168 per arm). The majority of families had household incomes ,$20 000 (57%), and 68% had $2 unmet basic needs. More WE CARE mothers received $1 referral at the index visit (70% vs 8%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 29.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.7-59.6). At the 12-month visit, more WE CARE mothers had enrolled in a new community resource (39% vs 24%; aOR = 2.1; 95% CI, 1.2-3.7). WE CARE mothers had greater odds of being employed (aOR = 44.4; 95% CI, 9.8-201.4). WE CARE children had greater odds of being in child care (aOR = 6.3; 95% CI, 1.5-26.0). WE CARE families had greater odds of receiving fuel assistance (aOR = 11.9; 95% CI, 1.7-82.9) and lower odds of being in a homeless shelter (aOR = 0.2; 95% CI, 0.1-0.9).CONCLUSIONS: Systematically screening and referring for social determinants during well child care can lead to the receipt of more community resources for families. WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT:Although pediatric professional guidelines emphasize addressing a child' s social environment in the context of well child care, it remains unclear whether screening for unmet basic needs at visits increases low-income families' receipt of community-based resources. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS:This study demonstrates that systematically screening and referring for social determinants of health during primary care can lead to the receipt of more community resources for families.

No abstract

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Mobile devices are ubiquitous in children' s lives, but how caregivers and children use them in everyday situations, and how use of devices affects caregiverchild interactions, has not been studied. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS:In naturalistic mealtime observations, we documented the behavior of many caregivers whose attention was highly absorbed in their mobile devices, with varying child reactions to this absorption. This study raises several hypotheses about mobile device use and caregiver-child interaction. abstract BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Mobile devices are a ubiquitous part of American life, yet how families use this technology has not been studied. We aimed to describe naturalistic patterns of mobile device use by caregivers and children to generate hypotheses about its effects on caregiver-child interaction. METHODS:Using nonparticipant observational methods, we observed 55 caregivers eating with 1 or more young children in fast food restaurants in a single metropolitan area. Observers wrote detailed field notes, continuously describing all aspects of mobile device use and child and caregiver behavior during the meal. Field notes were then subjected to qualitative analysis using grounded theory methods to identify common themes of device use.RESULTS: Forty caregivers used devices during their meal. The dominant theme salient to mobile device use and caregiver-child interaction was the degree of absorption in devices caregivers exhibited. Absorption was conceptualized as the extent to which primary engagement was with the device, rather than the child, and was determined by frequency, duration, and modality of device use; child response to caregiver use, which ranged from entertaining themselves to escalating bids for attention, and how caregivers managed this behavior; and separate versus shared use of devices. Highly absorbed caregivers often responded harshly to child misbehavior. CONCLUSIONS:We documented a range of patterns of mobile device use, characterized by varying degrees of absorption. These themes may be used as a foundation for coding schemes in quantitative studies exploring device use and child outcomes. Pediatrics 2014;133:e843-e849

US Preventive Services Task Force IMPORTANCE The number of deaths from cervical cancer in the United States has decreased substantially since the implementation of widespread cervical cancer screening and has declined from 2.8 to 2.3 deaths per 100 000 women from 2000 to 2015. OBJECTIVE To update the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2012 recommendation on screening for cervical cancer. EVIDENCE REVIEW The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on screening for cervical cancer, with a focus on clinical trials and cohort studies that evaluated screening with high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing alone or hrHPV and cytology together (cotesting) compared with cervical cytology alone. The USPSTF also commissioned a decision analysis model to evaluate the age at which to begin and end screening, the optimal interval for screening, the effectiveness of different screening strategies, and related benefits and harms of different screening strategies. FINDINGS Screening with cervical cytology alone, primary hrHPV testing alone, or cotesting can detect high-grade precancerous cervical lesions and cervical cancer. Screening women aged 21 to 65 years substantially reduces cervical cancer incidence and mortality. The harms of screening for cervical cancer in women aged 30 to 65 years are moderate. The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the benefits of screening every 3 years with cytology alone in women aged 21 to 29 years substantially outweigh the harms. The USPSTF concludes with high certainty that the benefits of screening every 3 years with cytology alone, every 5 years with hrHPV testing alone, or every 5 years with both tests (cotesting) in women aged 30 to 65 years outweigh the harms. Screening women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and women younger than 21 years does not provide significant benefit. Screening women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix for indications other than a high-grade precancerous lesion or cervical cancer provides no benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate to high certainty that screening women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer, screening women younger than 21 years, and screening women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix for indications other than a high-grade precancerous lesion or cervical cancer does not result in a positive net benefit. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION The USPSTF recommends screening for cervical cancer every 3 years with cervical cytology alone in women aged 21 to 29 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening every 3 years with cervical cytology alone, every 5 years with hrHPV testing alone, or every 5 years with hrHPV testing in combination with cytology (cotesting) in women aged 30 to 65 years. (A recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women younger than 21 years. (D recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women older th...

Our findings indicate that, despite the AAP policy and national efforts to improve developmental screening in the primary care setting, few pediatricians use effective means to screen their patients for developmental problems. It is uncertain whether standardized screening, as it is practiced currently, is associated with an increase in the self-reported identification of children with developmental disabilities.

BACKGROUND: Obesity and diabetes are highly prevalent among pregnant women in the United States. No study has examined the independent and combined effects of maternal prepregnancy obesity and maternal diabetes on the risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in parallel with other developmental disorders (DDs).

The USPSTF recommends that clinicians screen for obesity in children and adolescents 6 years and older and offer or refer them to comprehensive, intensive behavioral interventions to promote improvements in weight status. (B recommendation).

US Preventive Services Task Force IMPORTANCEIn the United States, the lifetime risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer is approximately 11%, and the lifetime risk of dying of prostate cancer is 2.5%. The median age of death from prostate cancer is 80 years. Many men with prostate cancer never experience symptoms and, without screening, would never know they have the disease. African American men and men with a family history of prostate cancer have an increased risk of prostate cancer compared with other men.OBJECTIVE To update the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer.EVIDENCE REVIEW The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer and subsequent treatment of screen-detected prostate cancer. The USPSTF also commissioned a review of existing decision analysis models and the overdiagnosis rate of PSA-based screening. The reviews also examined the benefits and harms of PSA-based screening in patient subpopulations at higher risk of prostate cancer, including older men, African American men, and men with a family history of prostate cancer.FINDINGS Adequate evidence from randomized clinical trials shows that PSA-based screening programs in men aged 55 to 69 years may prevent approximately 1.3 deaths from prostate cancer over approximately 13 years per 1000 men screened. Screening programs may also prevent approximately 3 cases of metastatic prostate cancer per 1000 men screened. Potential harms of screening include frequent false-positive results and psychological harms. Harms of prostate cancer treatment include erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, and bowel symptoms. About 1 in 5 men who undergo radical prostatectomy develop long-term urinary incontinence, and 2 in 3 men will experience long-term erectile dysfunction. Adequate evidence shows that the harms of screening in men older than 70 years are at least moderate and greater than in younger men because of increased risk of false-positive results, diagnostic harms from biopsies, and harms from treatment. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the net benefit of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men aged 55 to 69 years is small for some men. How each man weighs specific benefits and harms will determine whether the overall net benefit is small. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that the potential benefits of PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older do not outweigh the expected harms.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION For men aged 55 to 69 years, the decision to undergo periodic PSA-based screening for prostate cancer should be an individual one and should include discussion of the potential benefits and harms of screening with their clinician. Screening offers a small potential benefit of reducing the chance of death from prostate cancer in some men. However, many men will experience potential harms of screening, including false-positive results that r...