U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Methods to Communicate and Disseminate Clinical Preventive Services Recommendations

Kurth, Ann; Krist, Alex H.; Borsky, Amanda; Baumann, Linda C.; Curry, Susan J.; Davidson, Karina W.; Doubeni, Chyke A.; Epling, John W.; Fan, Tina; García, Francisco; Herzstein, Jessica; Phillips, William R.; Pignone, Michael; Tseng, Chien Wen; Weinstein, Rachel

doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2017.07.004

Cited by 21 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These people, as much as the professionals, determine the legitimacy of screening interventions, be it by bringing political pressure to bear on the relevant authorities or simply by consenting or declining to participate in screening. Screening governance organizations are often active in communicating their conclusions and rationales widely and for diverse publics 29 , and there is evidence that active engagement may have a significant impact on public attitudes towards screening 30 . They may also have the capacity to provide opportunities for public input, for example through public membership of review committees, or stakeholder input on draft recommendations.…”

Section: Organizing Screening Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

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

Sturdy¹,

Miller²,

Hogarth³

et al. 2020

Wellcome Open Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Organizing Screening Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

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

Sturdy¹,

Miller²,

Hogarth³

et al. 2020

Wellcome Open Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) was formed in 1984 as an expert, volunteer panel to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding preventive health interventions (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, 2019). The mission of the USPSTF is to standardize and disseminate evidence-based preventive services to improve the overall health of the population (Kurth et al, 2018). Despite extensive dissemination efforts, variations in clinical practice and implementation gaps remain.…”

Section: Us Preventive Services Task Force Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leveraging the Annual Wellness Visit to Improve Rural Depression Management

Sundeen

Powell

Deuell³

2020

OJRNHC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Depression is a common condition in rural primary care associated with significant adverse health and quality of life outcomes. Despite evidence-based practice recommendations, depression screening and follow-up are inconsistent in practice. The purpose of this quality improvement project was to improve the rate of depression screening and management as a component of the Annual Wellness Visit (AWV) in the rural, primary care setting. The overarching project aim was to increase the rate of depression screening and treatment in adult Medicare patients by 50% through the implementation of a standardized screening instrument and management plan within eight weeks of project implementation. Sample:The sample population included 66 Medicare beneficiaries receiving a Medicare Annual Wellness Visit at a primary care practice in rural Northeast Texas. Method:The central focus of this quality improvement project was to initiate standardized depression screening and management in the Medicare population as a component of the annual

show abstract

“…Additional implementation and translational research will increase the value of the USPSTF's work and would be helpful in its deliberations. 21 For many important health problems, including obesity, cardiovascular disease, and drug and alcohol misuse, effective prevention requires programs of care that are sustained, intensive, and multimodal and that use interprofessional approaches. A high priority for research is how to adapt complex interventions that have demonstrated effectiveness in healthcare settings with advanced systems and resources to real-world clinical settings.…”

Section: Evidence Gaps In Implementing Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Mabry-Hernandez

Curry

Phillips

et al. 2018

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Methods to Communicate and Disseminate Clinical Preventive Services Recommendations

Cited by 21 publications

References 18 publications

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

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

Leveraging the Annual Wellness Visit to Improve Rural Depression Management

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About