BACKGROUND: The original \'BETTER\' (Building on Existing Tools To Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) approach consisted of a prevention-focused visit between participants aged 40-65 years and a \"Prevention Practitioner\" (PP), who empowered the participant to set achievable prevention and screening goals for cancers and chronic diseases. BETTER was successfully adapted for economically deprived communities (BETTER HEALTH) in Canada. Our objective was to conduct a review of guidelines in preparation for adapting the \'BETTER HEALTH\' approach for younger adults aged 18-39 years living with lower income, a group known to have earlier mortality due to a higher prevalence of preventable chronic diseases than their peers with higher income.
METHODS: We searched multiple electronic databases and grey literature for clinical practice guidelines on prevention/screening and included those that met the following criteria: published in English from 2008-2020 in Canada or any of the following countries (Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, United States and England); and addressed prevention or screening. We assessed quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and extracted data (publication details, recommendations, and Quality/Level of evidence as reported by authors) from sources with overall scores of 5 or higher. Final recommendations were compiled after harmonization with input from diverse stakeholders (co-investigators, PPs, and the Community Advisory Committee).
RESULTS: We included a total of 85 guidelines, and developed a final list of 42 recommendations for 18-39 year-olds across 21 topics. Specific recommendations fell under the following topics: cancers, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, lifestyle (alcohol; healthy nutrition/physical activity); healthy relationships and healthy sexuality, immunization, oral health, social determinants of health, and substance use.
CONCLUSIONS: We identified evidence-based guidelines on individual-level prevention/screening actions for adults 18-39 years old and relevant for those living with lower income which will directly inform development and implementation of the BETTER LIFE intervention.

OBJECTIVE: The integration of these preventive guidelines with Electronic Health Records (EHRs) systems, coupled with the generation of personalized preventive care recommendations, holds significant potential for improving healthcare outcomes. Our study investigates the feasibility of using Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate the assessment criteria and risk factors from the guidelines for future analysis against medical records in EHR.
METHODS: We annotated the criteria, risk factors, and preventive medical services described in the adult guidelines published by United States Preventive Services Taskforce and evaluated 3 state-of-the-art LLMs on extracting information in these categories from the guidelines automatically.
RESULTS: We included 24 guidelines in this study. The LLMs can automate the extraction of all criteria, risk factors, and medical services from 9 guidelines. All 3 LLMs perform well on extracting information regarding the demographic criteria or risk factors. Some LLMs perform better on extracting the social determinants of health, family history, and preventive counseling services than the others.
CONCLUSIONS: While LLMs demonstrate the capability to handle lengthy preventive care guidelines, several challenges persist, including constraints related to the maximum length of input tokens and the tendency to generate content rather than adhering strictly to the original input. Moreover, the utilization of LLMs in real-world clinical settings necessitates careful ethical consideration. It is imperative that healthcare professionals meticulously validate the extracted information to mitigate biases, ensure completeness, and maintain accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS: We developed a data structure to store the annotated preventive guidelines and make it publicly available. Employing state-of-the-art LLMs to extract preventive care criteria, risk factors, and preventive care services paves the way for the future integration of these guidelines into the EHR.

To explore the evidence-translator\'s experience of the expert-recommended process of translating guidelines into tools for decision making, action, and adherence with the goal of improvement.
A single reviewer dual reviewed the content, quality, certainty, and applicability of primary atherosclerotic cardiovascular prevention guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force at the time of this work and used targeted searches of Medline to define the ideal structure and outcomes of tools; fill in gaps in guidelines; identify end-user needs; and choose and optimize existing tools in preparation for testing.
Guidelines addressed screening, treatments, and/or supports, but never the combination of all three. None provided all of the information needed for evidence translation. Searches in Medline filled in some evidence gaps and provided key insights into end-user needs and effective tools. However, evidence translators are left with complicated decisions about how to use and align evidence.
Guidelines provide some, but not all, of the evidence needed for evidence translation, requiring additional intensive work. Evidence gaps result in complicated decisions about how to use and align evidence and balance feasibility and rigor.
Guidelines, standards groups, and researchers should work to better support the process of evidence translation.

The 2022 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation notes that the decision to initiate daily aspirin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) should be made on a case-by-case basis for adults ages 40 to 59 with a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk. The recommendation applies to those without signs or symptoms of clinically evident CVD who are not at an increased risk of bleeding. Clinicians are encouraged to use their judgment in weighing the risks and benefits of aspirin therapy, while taking patient preference into account for patients ages 40 to 60.

Preventive health is a core part of primary care clinical practice and it is critical for both disease prevention and reducing the consequences of chronic disease. In primary care, the 5As framework is often used to guide behaviour change consultations for smoking, nutrition, alcohol use and physical activity.
Our objective was to analyze the emphasis placed on each 5As term in commonly used guidelines in Australian general practice and compare this to behaviour change terms/concepts essential to effective consultations.
A content analysis was undertaken to explore frequency of 5A terms and key behaviour change concepts/terms chapter-by-chapter across the three most commonly used guidelines in Australian general practice.
The prevalence of each 5As term differed in all three guidelines, with \'Arrange\' being mentioned the least often. Behaviour change concepts and terms, such as patient-centredness, listening, trust and tailoring, were infrequently used and were often confined to a separate chapter of the guidelines.
The language and content of the guidelines contrast with known effective components of behaviour change consultations. Future revisions could reconsider emphasis of 5As terms to avoid paternalistic approaches, improve shared language across guidelines and incorporate behavioural science principles to enhance preventative care delivery.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Depression affects an individual\'s physical health and mental well-being and, in pregnant and postpartum women, has specific adverse short- and long-term effects on maternal, child, and family health. The aim of these two systematic reviews is to identify evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for depression compared to no screening in the general adult and pregnant and postpartum populations in primary care or non-mental health clinic settings. These reviews will inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library using a randomized controlled trial filter, where applicable, October 4, 2018, and updated to May 11, 2020. We also searched for gray literature (e.g., websites of organizations of health professionals and patients). Study selection for depression screening trials was performed first on title and abstract, followed by full-text screening. Data extraction, assessment of the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and application of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation were performed by one reviewer and validated by a second reviewer.
RESULTS: A total of three trials were included. All three trials were included in the general adult review, while one of the three trials was included in the pregnant and postpartum review. We did not pool results due to substantial differences between studies and high risk of bias. In the general adult review, the first trial (n = 1001) evaluated whether screening for depression in adults with acute coronary syndrome compared to usual care improves health-related quality of life, depression symptoms, or harms of screening at 6, 12, and 18 months. There were little to no differences between the groups at 18 months for the outcomes. The second trial included adults (n = 1412) undergoing initial consultation for osteoarthritis, evaluated for depression and general health (mental and physical) after initial consultation and at 3, 6, and 12 months. The physical component score was statistically significantly lower (worse health) in the screened group at 6 months; however, this difference was not significant at 3 or at 12 months. There were no clinically important or statistically significant differences for other outcomes between groups at any time. The third trial (included in both reviews) reported on 462 postpartum women. At 6 months postpartum, fewer women in the screening group were identified as possibly depressed compared to the control group (RR 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.89) and mean EPDS scores were also statistically significantly lower in the screened group (standardized mean difference 0.34 lower (95% CI 0.15 to 0.52 lower)). All other outcomes did not differ between groups at follow-up. There were serious concerns about the cut-offs used for the questionnaire used to screen, diagnostic confirmation, selective outcome reporting, and the reported magnitude of effects.
CONCLUSIONS: There are limitations of the evidence included in the reviews. There was moderate certainty in the evidence from one trial that screening for depression in the general adult population in primary care or non-mental health clinic settings likely results in little to no difference on reported outcomes; however, the evidence was uncertain from the other two included trials. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of screening for depression in pregnant or postpartum women in primary care or non-mental health clinic settings. Well-conducted and better-reported trials are needed that meet the screening trial criteria used in this review.
BACKGROUND: Both protocols have been registered in the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) [adult: CRD42018099690 ; pregnancy and postpartum: CRD42018099689 ] and published ( https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s13643-018-0930-3 ).

Cervical cancer screening rates are suboptimal in the US. Population-based assessment of reasons for not receiving screening is needed, particularly among women from historically underserved demographic groups.
To estimate changes in US Preventive Service Task Force guideline-concordant cervical cancer screening over time and assess the reasons women do not receive up-to-date screening by sociodemographic factors.
This pooled population-based cross-sectional study used data from the US National Health Interview Survey from 2005 and 2019. A total of 20 557 women (weighted, 113.1 million women) aged 21 to 65 years without previous hysterectomy were included. Analyses were conducted from March 30 to August 19, 2021.
Sociodemographic factors, including age, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, rurality of residence, and health insurance type.
Primary outcomes were US Preventive Services Task Force guideline-concordant cervical cancer screening rates and self-reported primary reasons for not receiving up-to-date screening. For 2005, up-to-date screening was defined as screening every 3 years for women aged 21 to 65 years. For 2019, up-to-date screening was defined as screening every 3 years with a Papanicolaou test alone for women aged 21 to 29 years and screening every 3 years with a Papanicolaou test alone or every 5 years with high-risk human papillomavirus testing or cotesting for women aged 30 to 65 years. Population estimation included sampling weights.
Among 20 557 women (weighted, 113.1 million women) included in the study, most were aged 30 to 65 years (16 219 women; weighted, 86.3 million women [76.3%]) and had private insurance (13 571 women; weighted, 75.8 million women [67.0%]). With regard to race and ethnicity, 997 women (weighted, 6.9 million women [6.1%]) were Asian, 3821 women (weighted, 19.5 million women [17.2%]) were Hispanic, 2862 women (weighted, 14.8 million women [13.1%]) were non-Hispanic Black, 12 423 women (weighted, 69.0 million women [61.0%]) were non-Hispanic White, and 453 women (weighted, 3.0 million women [2.7%]) were of other races and/or ethnicities (including Alaska Native and American Indian [weighted, 955 000 women (0.8%)] and other single and multiple races or ethnicities [weighted, 2.0 million women (1.8%)]). In 2019, women aged 21 to 29 years had a significantly higher rate of overdue screening (29.1%) vs women aged 30 to 65 years (21.1%; P < .001). In both age groups, the proportion of women without up-to-date screening increased significantly from 2005 to 2019 (from 14.4% to 23.0%; P < .001). Significantly higher rates of overdue screening were found among those of Asian vs non-Hispanic White race and ethnicity (31.4% vs 20.1%; P = .01), those identifying as LGBQ+ (gender identity was not assessed because of a small sample) vs heterosexual (32.0% vs 22.2%; P < .001), those living in rural vs urban areas (26.2% vs 22.6%; P = .04), and those without insurance vs those with private insurance (41.7% vs 18.1%; P < .001). The most common reason for not receiving timely screening across all groups was lack of knowledge, ranging from 47.2% of women identifying as LGBQ+ to 64.4% of women with Hispanic ethnicity. Previous receipt of a human papillomavirus vaccine was not a primary reason for not having up-to-date screening (<1% of responses). From 2005 to 2019, among women aged 30 to 65 years, lack of access decreased significantly as a primary reason for not receiving screening (from 21.8% to 9.7%), whereas lack of knowledge (from 45.2% to 54.8%) and not receiving recommendations from health care professionals (from 5.9% to 12.0%) increased significantly.
This cross-sectional study found that cervical cancer screening that was concordant with US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines decreased in the US between 2005 and 2019, with lack of knowledge reported as the biggest barrier to receiving timely screening. Campaigns addressing patient knowledge and provider communication may help to improve screening rates, and cultural adaptation of interventions is needed to reduce existing disparities.

BACKGROUND: The crisis situation generated by COVID-19 and the measures adopted have generated social changes in the normal dynamics of the general population and especially for health workers, who find themselves caring for patients with suspected or confirmed infection. Recent studies have detected in them depression and anxiety symptoms and burnout syndrome, with personal and social conditions impacting their response capacity during the health emergency. Our aim was to generate recommendations for the promotion and protection of the mental health of health workers and teams in the first line of care in the health emergency due to COVID-19.
METHODS: A rapid literature search was carried out in PubMed and Google Scholar, and an iterative expert consensus and through electronic consultation, with 13 participants from the areas of psychology, psychiatry and medicine; the grading of its strength and directionality was carried out according to the international standards of the Joanna Briggs Institute.
RESULTS: Thirty-one recommendations were generated on self-care of health workers, community care among health teams, screening for alarm signs in mental health and for health institutions.
CONCLUSIONS: The promotion and protection activities in mental health to face the health emergency generated by COVID-19 worldwide can include coordinated actions between workers, health teams and health institutions as part of a comprehensive, community care, co-responsible and sustained over time.

To provide an update on current recommendations for cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection during pregnancy. The objectives of this guideline are: TARGET POPULATION: Patients of child-bearing age, pregnant patients, and patients planning a pregnancy.
The patient partners urged us to make awareness of preventive strategies a high priority, despite concern that discussing CMV with patients could cause unnecessary anxiety. CMV educational interventions have shown benefits from increased awareness of cCMV prevalence and preventive strategies among providers, patients, and families.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases for CMV in pregnancy. The search terms were developed using MeSH terms and keywords (Appendix). The results were filtered for articles published between January 2010 and October 2020 and systematic reviews, meta-analyses, clinical trials, and observational studies. The main inclusion criteria were pregnant patients and infants, as the target population, and CMV infection, as the diagnosis of interest. Recommendations are graded according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force grade of recommendations and level of certainty.
We collaborated with patient partners, including members of CMV Canada (cmvcanada.com). In formulating our recommendations, we included patients\' voices to add a unique and valuable perspective, thus ensuring that our recommendations are relevant to the patient-provider partnership.
All perinatal health care providers. RECOMMENDATIONS (GRADE AND LEVEL OF CERTAINTY IN PARENTHESES).