Benedict I. Truman

Data collection instrument and procedure for systematic reviews in the guide to community preventive services1

INTRODUCTION A standardized abstraction form and procedure was developed to provide consistency, reduce bias, and improve validity and reliability in the Guide to Community Preventive Services: Systematic Reviews and Evidence-Based Recommendations (the Guide). DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT The content of the abstraction form was based on methodologies used in other systematic reviews; reporting standards established by major health and social science journals; the evaluation, statistical and meta-analytic literature; expert opinion and review; and pilot-testing. The form is used to classify and describe key characteristics of the intervention and evaluation (26 questions) and assess the quality of the studys execution (23 questions). Study procedures and results are collected and specific threats to the validity of the study are assessed across six categories (intervention and study descriptions, sampling, measurement, analysis, interpretation of results and other execution issues). DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES Each study is abstracted by two independent reviewers and reconciled by the chapter development team. Reviewers are trained and provided with feedback. DISCUSSION What to abstract and how to summarize the data are discretionary choices that influence conclusions drawn on the quality of execution of the study and its effectiveness. The form balances flexibility for the evaluation of papers with different study designs and intervention types with the need to ask specific questions to maximize validity and reliability. It provides a structured format that researchers and others can use to review the content and quality of papers, conduct systematic reviews, or develop manuscripts. A systematic approach to developing and evaluating manuscripts will help to promote overall improvement of the scientific literature.

Methods for Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations for the Guide to Community Preventive Services

OBJECTIVES This paper describes the methods used in the Guide to Community Preventive Services: Systematic Reviews and Evidence-Based Recommendations (the Guide) for conducting systematic reviews of economic evaluations across community health-promotion and disease-prevention interventions. The lack of standardized methods to improve the comparability of results from economic evaluations has hampered the use of data on costs and financial benefits in evidence-based reviews of effectiveness. The methods and instruments developed for the Guide provide an explicit and systematic approach for abstracting economic evaluation data and increase the usefulness of economic information for policy making in health care and public health. METHODS The following steps were taken for systematic reviews of economic evaluations: (1) systematic searches were conducted; (2) studies using economic analytic methods, such as cost analysis or cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit or cost-utility analysis, were selected according to explicit inclusion criteria; (3) economic data were abstracted and adjusted using a standardized abstraction form; and (4) adjusted summary measures were listed in summary tables. RESULTS These methods were used in a review of 10 interventions designed to improve vaccination coverage in children, adolescents and adults. Ten average costs and 14 cost-effectiveness ratios were abstracted or calculated from data reported in 24 studies and expressed in 1997 USD. The types of costs included in the analysis and intervention definitions varied extensively. Gaps in data were found for many interventions.

Developing the guide to community preventive services—overview and rationale

When the GUIDE TO COMMUNITY PREVENTIVE SERVICES: Systematic Reviews and Evidence-Based Recommendations (the Guide) is published in 2001, it will represent a significant national effort in encouraging evidence-based public health practice in defined populations (e.g., communities or members of specific managed care plans). The Guide will make recommendations regarding public health interventions to reduce illness, disability, premature death, and environmental hazards that impair community health and quality of life. The Guide is being developed under the guidance of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force)-a 15-member, nonfederal, independent panel of experts. Subject matter experts, methodologists, and scientific staff are supporting the Task Force in using explicit rules to conduct systematic literature reviews of evidence of effectiveness, economic efficiency, and feasibility on which to base recommendations for community action. Contributors to the Guide are building on the experience of others to confront methodologic challenges unique to the assessment of complex multicomponent intervention studies with nonexperimental or nonrandomized designs and diverse measures of outcome and effectiveness. Persons who plan, fund, and implement population-based services and policies to improve health at the state and local levels are invited to scrutinize the work in progress and to communicate with contributors. When the Guide is complete, readers are encouraged to consider critically the value and relevance of its contents, the implementation of interventions the Task Force recommends, the abandonment of interventions the Task Force does not recommend, and the need for rigorous evaluation of the benefits and harms of promising interventions of unknown effectiveness.

Reviews of evidence on interventions to prevent dental caries, oral and pharyngeal cancers, and sports-related craniofacial injuries

This report presents the results of systematic reviews of effectiveness, applicability, other positive and negative effects, economic evaluations, and barriers to use of selected population-based interventions intended to prevent or control dental caries, oral and pharyngeal cancers, and sports-related craniofacial injuries. 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 (the Task Force) about the use of these selected interventions. The Task Force recommendations are presented in this supplement.

Identifying ancestry: The reliability of ancestral identification in the United States by self, proxy, interviewer, and funeral director.

We examined consistency in the classification of ancestry by self, proxy, interviewer, and funeral director (on a death certificate) in a sample of the U.S. population—the First National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and Epidemiologic Follow-up. Among study subjects for whom comparable ethnic identity options were available at both interviews, 58% of subjects specified the same identity at two times. Persons who specified four different ethnic backgrounds were 3.4 times as likely to change their identity over time as persons specifying only one background. Self-classification of ancestry at initial interview was consistent with proxy reports at follow-up for 55% of subjects for whom proxy information was available. Comparison of the self-classification of ancestry with the classification of race by interviewers and by funeral directors indicates high consistency for Whites and Blacks and low consistency for American Indians. The “measurement” of ancestry (that is, race or ethnicity) is critical to the understanding and elimination of differences in health status among racial/ethnic populations, but the low reliability of these measures over time and across observers complicates the analysis and interpretation of health statistics by ancestry, particularly for populations other than White or Black.

Childhood vaccinations and risk of asthma

Background. A few previous studies have suggested that childhood vaccines, particularly whole cell pertussis vaccine, may increase the risk of asthma. We evaluated the suggested association between childhood vaccinations and risk of asthma. Methods. Cohort study involving 167 240 children who were enrolled in 4 large health maintenance organizations during 1991 to 1997, with follow-up from birth until at least 18 months to a maximum of 6 years of age. Vaccinations were ascertained through computerized immunization tracking systems, and onset of asthma was identified through computerized data on medical care encounters and medication dispensings. Results. In the study 18 407 children (11.0%) developed asthma, with a median age at onset of 11 months. The relative risks (95% confidence intervals) of asthma were: 0.92 (0.83 to 1.02) for diphtheria, tetanus and whole cell pertussis vaccine; 1.09 (0.9 to 1.23) for oral polio vaccine; 0.97 (0.91 to 1.04) for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine; 1.18 (1.02 to 1.36) for Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib); and 1.20 (1.13 to 1.27) for hepatitis B vaccine. The Hib result was not consistent across health maintenance organizations. In a subanalysis restricted to children who had at least 2 medical care encounters during their first year, the relative risks decreased to 1.07 (0.71 to 1.60) for Hib and 1.09 (0.88 to 1.34) for hepatitis B vaccine. Conclusion. There is no association between diphtheria, tetanus and whole cell pertussis vaccine, oral polio vaccine or measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the risk of asthma. The weak associations for Hib and hepatitis B vaccines seem to be at least partially accounted for by health care utilization or information bias.

Reviews of evidence on interventions to prevent dental caries, oral and pharyngeal cancers, and sports-related craniofacial injuries1

This report presents the results of systematic reviews of effectiveness, applicability, other positive and negative effects, economic evaluations, and barriers to use of selected population-based interventions intended to prevent or control dental caries, oral and pharyngeal cancers, and sports-related craniofacial injuries. 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 (the Task Force) about the use of these selected interventions. The Task Force recommendations are presented in this supplement.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Hospitalizations and Deaths Associated with 2009 Pandemic Influenza A (H1N1) Virus Infections in the United States

PURPOSE Concerns have been raised regarding possible racial-ethnic disparities in 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) (pH1N1) illness severity and health consequences for U.S. minority populations. METHODS Using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Emerging Infections Program Influenza-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance, and Influenza-Associated Pediatric Mortality Surveillance, we calculated race-ethnicity-specific, age-adjusted rates of self-reported influenza-like illness (ILI) and pH1N1-associated hospitalizations. We used χ(2) tests to evaluate racial-ethnic disparities in ILI-associated health care-seeking behavior and pH1N1 hospitalization. To evaluate pediatric deaths, we compared racial-ethnic proportions of deaths against U.S. population distributions. RESULTS Prevalence of self-reported ILI was lower among Hispanics (6.5%), higher among American Indians/Alaska Natives (16.2%), and similar among non-Hispanic blacks (7.7%) compared with non-Hispanic whites (8.5%). No racial-ethnic differences were identified in ILI-associated health care-seeking behavior. Age-adjusted pH1N1-associated Emerging Infections Program hospitalization rates were higher among all minority populations (range: 8.1-10.9/100,000 population) compared with non-Hispanic whites (3.0/100,000). The proportion of pH1N1-associated pediatric deaths was higher than expected among Hispanics (31%) and lower than expected among non-Hispanic whites (45%) given the proportions of the U.S. population they comprise (22% and 58%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Racial-ethnic disparities in pH1N1-associated hospitalizations and pediatric deaths were identified. Vaccination remains the primary intervention for preventing influenza.

Protecting Vulnerable Populations From Pandemic Influenza in the United States: A Strategic Imperative

Protecting vulnerable populations from pandemic influenza is a strategic imperative. The US national strategy for pandemic influenza preparedness and response assigns roles to governments, businesses, civic and community-based organizations, individuals, and families. Because influenza is highly contagious, inadequate preparedness or untimely response in vulnerable populations increases the risk of infection for the general population. Recent public health emergencies have reinforced the importance of preparedness and the challenges of effective response among vulnerable populations. We explore definitions and determinants of vulnerable, at-risk, and special populations and highlight approaches for ensuring that pandemic influenza preparedness includes these populations and enables them to respond appropriately. We also provide an overview of population-specific and cross-cutting articles in this theme issue on influenza preparedness for vulnerable populations.

Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response Among Immigrants and Refugees

Some immigrants and refugees might be more vulnerable than other groups to pandemic influenza because of preexisting health and social disparities, migration history, and living conditions in the United States. Vulnerable populations and their service providers need information to overcome limited resources, inaccessible health services, limited English proficiency and foreign language barriers, cross-cultural misunderstanding, and inexperience applying recommended guidelines. To increase the utility of guidelines, we searched the literature, synthesized relevant findings, and examined their implications for vulnerable populations and stakeholders. Here we summarize advice from an expert panel of public health scientists and service program managers who attended a meeting convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, May 1 and 2, 2008, in Atlanta, Georgia.