General

Guideline Title

Primary care interventions to prevent child maltreatment: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Bibliographic Source(s)

  • U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Primary care interventions to prevent child maltreatment: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2013 Aug 20;159(4):289-95. [50 references] PubMed

Guideline Status

This is the current release of the guideline.

This guideline updates a previous version: Screening for family and intimate partner violence: recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Mar 2;140(5):382-6.

Recommendations

Major Recommendations

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) grades its recommendations (A, B, C, D, or I) and identifies the levels of certainty regarding net benefit (High, Moderate, and Low). The definitions of these grades can be found at the end of the “Major Recommendations” field.

Summary of Recommendations and Evidence

The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of primary care interventions to prevent child maltreatment. This recommendation applies to children who do not have signs or symptoms of maltreatment. ( I statement ).

Clinical Considerations

Patient Population under Consideration

This recommendation applies to children in the general U.S. population from newborn to age 18 years who do not have signs or symptoms of maltreatment. “Child maltreatment” is defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as any act or series of acts of commission or omission by a parent or other caregiver that results in harm, potential for harm, or threat of harm to a child. “Child abuse” (acts of commission) includes physical, sexual, and psychological abuse. “Child neglect” (acts of omission) includes the failure to provide for a child’s basic physical, emotional, health care, or educational needs or to protect a child from harm or potential harm.

Assessment of Risk

Numerous risk factors are associated with child maltreatment, including but not limited to young, single, or nonbiological parents; parental lack of understanding of children’s needs, child development, or parenting skills; poor parent–child relationships or negative interactions; parental thoughts or emotions that support maltreatment behaviors; family dysfunction or violence; parental history of abuse or neglect in the family of origin; substance abuse within the family; social isolation, poverty, or other socioeconomic disadvantages; and parental stress and distress.

Interventions

Although the evidence is insufficient to recommend specific preventive interventions in a clinical setting, most programs for prevention of child maltreatment studied and recommended by others focus on home visitation, which is generally considered to be a community-based service. Home visitation programs usually comprise a combination of services provided by a nurse or paraprofessional in a family’s home on a regularly scheduled basis. Most home visitation programs are targeted to families with young children and often begin in the pre- or postnatal period.

The services provided in home visitation programs often include parent education on normal child development, counseling, problem solving, free transportation to health clinic appointments, enhancement of informal support systems, linkage to community services, promotion of positive parent–child interactions, ensuring a source for regular health care, promotion of environmental safety, and classes for preparing for motherhood. The one trial reviewed by the USPSTF that was not a home visitation program used a multistep approach in a primary care clinic, with a social worker available to help parents who self-reported psychosocial problems, such as substance abuse.

Suggestions for Practice Regarding the I Statement

Potential Preventable Burden

Child maltreatment is a serious problem that affected more than 680 000 children and resulted in approximately 1570 deaths in 2011. It can result in lifelong negative consequences for victims. Most child maltreatment is in the form of neglect (approximately 78%), and most deaths occur in children younger than 4 years (approximately 80%).

Potential Harms

There is limited evidence on the harms of interventions to prevent child maltreatment. Reported potential harms include dissolution of families, legal concerns, and an increased risk for further harm to the child.

Current Practice

All states and the District of Columbia have laws mandating that all professionals who have contact with children, including all health care workers, report suspected maltreatment to Child Protective Services (CPS). Pediatricians, family physicians, and other primary care providers are in a unique position to identify children at risk for maltreatment through well-child and other visits. However, although pediatricians state that preventing maltreatment is one of their primary roles, they rarely explicitly screen for family violence in practice or screen only in selected cases. All states have home visitation programs to support families with young children, but the services provided in these programs and the eligibility criteria vary by state.

Useful Resources

The USPSTF has updated its recommendation on screening for intimate partner violence and abuse of elderly and vulnerable adults (see the NGC summary of the USPSTF guideline Screening for intimate partner violence and abuse of elderly and vulnerable adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement ).

The Community Preventive Services Task Force has issued a recommendation on early childhood home visitation to prevent child maltreatment (available at www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/home/index.html ).

Definitions:

What the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Grades Mean and Suggestions for Practice

Grade Grade Definitions Suggestions for Practice
A The USPSTF recommends the service. There is high certainty that the net benefit is substantial. Offer or provide this service.
B The USPSTF recommends the service. There is high certainty that the net benefit is moderate or there is moderate certainty that the net benefit is moderate to substantial. Offer or provide this service.
C The USPSTF recommends selectively offering or providing this service to individual patients based on professional judgment and patient preferences. There is at least moderate certainty that the net benefit is small. Offer or provide this service only if other considerations support offering or providing the service in an individual patient.
D The USPSTF recommends against the service. There is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits. Discourage the use of this service.
I
Statement 		The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of the service. Evidence is lacking, of poor quality, or conflicting, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be measured. Read "Clinical Considerations" section of USPSTF Recommendation Statement (see the "Major Recommendations" field). If the service is offered, patients should understand the uncertainty about the balance of benefits and harms.

USPSTF Levels of Certainty Regarding Net Benefit

Definition: The USPSTF defines certainty as “likelihood that the USPSTF assessment of the net benefit of a preventive service is correct.” The net benefit is defined as benefit minus harm of the preventive service as implemented in a general, primary care population. The USPSTF assigns a certainty level based on the nature of the overall evidence available to assess the net benefit of a preventive service.
Level of Certainty Description
High The available evidence usually includes consistent results from well-designed, well-conducted studies in representative primary care populations. These studies assess the effects of the preventive service on health outcomes. This conclusion is therefore unlikely to be strongly affected by the results of future studies.
Moderate The available evidence is sufficient to determine the effects of the preventive service on health outcomes, but confidence in the estimate is constrained by factors such as:
  • The number, size, or quality of individual studies
  • Inconsistency of findings across individual studies
  • Limited generalizability of findings to routine primary care practice; and
  • Lack of coherence in the chain of evidence
As more information becomes available, the magnitude or direction of the observed effect could change, and this change may be large enough to alter the conclusion.
Low The available evidence is insufficient to assess effects on health outcomes. Evidence is insufficient because of:
  • The limited number or size of studies
  • Important flaws in study design or methods
  • Inconsistency of findings across individual studies
  • Gaps in the chain of evidence
  • Findings not generalizable to routine primary care practice; and
  • A lack of information on important health outcomes
More information may allow an estimation of effects on health outcomes.

Clinical Algorithm(s)

None provided

Scope

Disease/Condition(s)

Child maltreatment, which includes child abuse (physical, sexual, and psychological) or neglect

Guideline Category

  • Counseling
  • Prevention
  • Risk Assessment

Clinical Specialty

  • Family Practice
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Pediatrics
  • Preventive Medicine

Intended Users

  • Advanced Practice Nurses
  • Allied Health Personnel
  • Nurses
  • Physician Assistants
  • Physicians
  • Social Workers

Guideline Objective(s)

To update the child abuse and neglect portion of the 2004 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for family and intimate partner violence

Target Population

Children in the general U.S. population from newborn to age 18 years who do not have signs or symptoms of maltreatment

Interventions and Practices Considered

Primary care interventions (behavioral interventions and counseling) to prevent child maltreatment:

  • Risk assessment followed by physician and clinic-based social work interventions
  • Childhood home visitation interventions

Major Outcomes Considered

  • Key Question 1 : For children without obvious signs and symptoms of abuse or neglect, but potentially at increased risk, how well do behavioral interventions and counseling initiated in primary care settings reduce exposure to abuse or neglect, physical or mental harms, or mortality?
  • Key Question 2 : What are the adverse effects of behavioral interventions and counseling to reduce harm from abuse and neglect?

Methodology

Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence

  • Hand-searches of Published Literature (Primary Sources)
  • Hand-searches of Published Literature (Secondary Sources)
  • Searches of Electronic Databases

Description of Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence

Note from the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) : A systematic evidence review was prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC), Oregon Health & Science University for use by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) (see the “Availability of Companion Documents” field).

Search Strategies

In conjunction with a research librarian, EPC staff used the National Library of Medicine’s Medical Subject Headings keyword nomenclature to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews through the second quarter of 2012 and MEDLINE and PsycINFO from January 2002 to June 2012 for relevant English-language studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. They also reviewed reference lists of papers and, using Scopus, reviewed citations of key studies.

Study Selection

Investigators developed inclusion and exclusion criteria for abstracts and articles based on the target population, key questions, and outcome measures. They included research that was done in the United States or in similar populations that receive services and interventions applicable to medical practice in the United States and was published in 2003 or later. After an initial review of abstracts, investigators reviewed full-text articles and conducted a second review to ensure eligibility. Appendix Figure 2 of the evidence review (see the “Availability of Companion Documents” field) shows the search and selection diagram.

EPC staff included trials of the effectiveness of behavioral interventions and counseling to reduce exposure to abuse or neglect or improve health outcomes. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they enrolled children without obvious signs or symptoms of abuse or neglect, used a method to identify families or children at risk that was applicable to primary care, evaluated an intervention that primary care clinicians could access or provide referral for, measured outcomes related to abuse or neglect, and compared outcomes between intervention and nonintervention groups. All types of Child Protective Services (CPS) reports (confirmed and unconfirmed) were included because research indicates no association between substantiation status and behavioral and developmental outcomes. Studies focused on clinician education, methods to increase screening rates, and perceptions and attitudes of physicians and other clinicians, as well as studies of public awareness campaigns or other interventions not applicable to primary care settings and studies of interventions directed at perpetrators, were not included. Studies that reported use of services or referral for services as outcome measures without also reporting abuse or health outcomes were also not included.

Studies of any design were included to describe potential adverse effects of behavioral interventions and counseling. Potential adverse effects include escalating levels of abuse and neglect; false-positive evaluations; adverse consequences as a result of the investigation process; labeling, stigmatizing, and psychological distress; dissolution of families; and legal issues, among others.

Number of Source Documents

  • Key Question 1: 11 randomized controlled trials
  • Key Question 2: None

Methods Used to Assess the Quality and Strength of the Evidence

  • Expert Consensus
  • Weighting According to a Rating Scheme (Scheme Not Given)

Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Evidence

Not stated

Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence

  • Review of Published Meta-Analyses
  • Systematic Review with Evidence Tables

Description of the Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence

Note from the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) : A systematic evidence review was prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC), Oregon Health & Science University for use by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) (see the “Availability of Companion Documents” field).

Data Abstraction and Quality Rating

An investigator abstracted data about study design and setting; participant characteristics; data collection procedures; numbers enrolled and lost to follow-up; methods of exposure and outcome ascertainment; analytic methods, including adjustment for confounders; and outcomes. A second investigator confirmed the accuracy of data.

EPC staff used criteria developed by the USPSTF to assess the quality of studies. They assessed the applicability of studies by using the PICOTS (population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, timing of outcomes measurement, and setting) framework adapted to this topic. Two investigators independently rated the quality and applicability of each eligible study as good, fair, or poor. Final ratings were determined by consensus.

Data Synthesis

EPC staff assessed the aggregate quality of the body of evidence for each key question as good, fair, or poor by using methods developed by the USPSTF based on the number, quality, size, and applicability of studies and the consistency of results between studies. Studies were considered consistent if outcomes were generally in the same direction of effect and ranges of effect sizes were narrow. Consistency was determined by consensus of the investigators.

Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations

  • Balance Sheets
  • Expert Consensus

Description of Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) systematically reviews the evidence concerning both the benefits and harms of widespread implementation of a preventive service. It then assesses the certainty of the evidence and the magnitude of the benefits and harms. On the basis of this assessment, the USPSTF assigns a letter grade to each preventive service signifying its recommendation about provision of the service (see table below). An important, but often challenging, step is determining the balance between benefits and harms to estimate “net benefit” (that is, benefits minus harms).

Table 1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Grid*

Certainty of Net Benefit Magnitude of Net Benefit
Substantial Moderate Small Zero/Negative
High A B C D
Moderate B B C D
Low Insufficient
  • A, B, C, D, and I (Insufficient) represent the letter grades of recommendation or statement of insufficient evidence assigned by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force after assessing certainty and magnitude of net benefit of the service (see the “Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Recommendations” field).

The overarching question that the Task Force seeks to answer for every preventive service is whether evidence suggests that provision of the service would improve health outcomes if implemented in a general primary care population. For screening topics, this standard could be met by a large randomized, controlled trial (RCT) in a representative asymptomatic population with follow-up of all members of both the group “invited for screening” and the group “not invited for screening.”

Direct RCT evidence about screening is often unavailable, so the Task Force considers indirect evidence. To guide its selection of indirect evidence, the Task Force constructs a “chain of evidence” within an analytic framework. For each key question, the body of pertinent literature is critically appraised, focusing on the following 6 questions:

  1. Do the studies have the appropriate research design to answer the key question(s)?
  2. To what extent are the existing studies of high quality? (i.e., what is the internal validity?)
  3. To what extent are the results of the studies generalizable to the general U.S. primary care population and situation? (i.e., what is the external validity?)
  4. How many studies have been conducted that address the key question(s)? How large are the studies? (i.e., what is the precision of the evidence?)
  5. How consistent are the results of the studies?
  6. Are there additional factors that assist the USPSTF in drawing conclusions (e.g., presence or absence of dose–response effects, fit within a biologic model)?

The next step in the Task Force process is to use the evidence from the key questions to assess whether there would be net benefit if the service were implemented. In 2001, the USPSTF published an article that documented its systematic processes of evidence evaluation and recommendation development. At that time, the Task Force’s overall assessment of evidence was described as good, fair, or poor. The Task Force realized that this rating seemed to apply only to how well studies were conducted and did not fully capture all of the issues that go into an overall assessment of the evidence about net benefit. To avoid confusion, the Task Force has changed its terminology. Whereas individual study quality will continue to be characterized as good, fair, or poor, the term certainty will now be used to describe the Task Force’s assessment of the overall body of evidence about net benefit of a preventive service and the likelihood that the assessment is correct. Certainty will be determined by considering all 6 questions listed above; the judgment about certainty will be described as high, moderate, or low.

In making its assessment of certainty about net benefit, the evaluation of the evidence from each key question plays a primary role. It is important to note that the Task Force makes recommendations for real-world medical practice in the United States and must determine to what extent the evidence for each key question—even evidence from screening RCTs or treatment RCTs—can be applied to the general primary care population. Frequently, studies are conducted in highly selected populations under special conditions. The Task Force must consider differences between the general primary care population and the populations studied in RCTs and make judgments about the likelihood of observing the same effect in actual practice.

It is also important to note that one of the key questions in the analytic framework refers to the potential harms of the preventive service. The Task Force considers the evidence about the benefits and harms of preventive services separately and equally. Data about harms are often obtained from observational studies because harms observed in RCTs may not be representative of those found in usual practice and because some harms are not completely measured and reported in RCTs.

Putting the body of evidence for all key questions together as a chain, the Task Force assesses the certainty of net benefit of a preventive service by asking the 6 major questions listed above. The Task Force would rate a body of convincing evidence about the benefits of a service that, for example, derives from several RCTs of screening in which the estimate of benefits can be generalized to the general primary care population as “high” certainty (see the “Rating Scheme for the Strength of Recommendations” field). The Task Force would rate a body of evidence that was not clearly applicable to general practice or has other defects in quality, research design, or consistency of studies as “moderate” certainty. Certainty is “low” when, for example, there are gaps in the evidence linking parts of the analytic framework, when evidence to determine the harms of treatment is unavailable, or when evidence about the benefits of treatment is insufficient. Table 4 in the methodology document listed below (see the “Availability of Companion Documents” field) summarizes the current terminology used by the Task Force to describe the critical assessment of evidence at all 3 levels: individual studies, key questions, and overall certainty of net benefit of the preventive service.

Sawaya GF et al. Update on the methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: estimating certainty and magnitude of net benefit. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:871-875.[5 references].

I Statements

For I statements, the USPSTF has a new plan to commission its Evidence-based Practice Centers to collect information in 4 domains pertinent to clinical decisions about prevention and to report this information routinely. This plan is described in the paper: Petitti DB et al. Update on the methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: insufficient evidence. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:199-205. http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=744255

The first domain is potential preventable burden of suffering from the condition. When evidence is insufficient, provision of an intervention designed to prevent a serious condition (such as dementia) might be viewed more favorably than provision of a service designed to prevent a condition that does not cause as much suffering (such as rash). The USPSTF recognized that “burden of suffering” is subjective and involves judgment. In clinical settings, it should be informed by patient values and concerns.

The second domain is potential harm of the intervention. When evidence is insufficient, an intervention with a large potential for harm (such as major surgery) might be viewed less favorably than an intervention with a small potential for harm (such as advice to watch less television). The USPSTF again acknowledges the subjective nature and the difficulty of assessing potential harms: for example, how bad is a “mild” stroke?

The third domain is cost—not just monetary cost, but opportunity cost, in particular the amount of time a provider spends to provide the service, the amount of time the patient spends to partake of it, and the benefits that might derive from alternative uses of the time or money for patients, clinicians, or systems. Consideration of clinician time is especially important for preventive services with only insufficient evidence because providing them could “crowd out” provision of preventive services with proven value, services for conditions that require immediate action, or services more desired by the patient. For example, a decision to routinely inspect the skin could take up the time available to discuss smoking cessation, or to address an acute problem or a minor injury that the patient considers important.

The fourth domain is current practice. This domain was chosen because it is important to clinicians for at least 2 reasons. Clinicians justifiably fear that not doing something that is done on a widespread basis in the community may lead to litigation. More important, addressing patient expectations is a crucial part of the clinician–patient relationship in terms of building trust and developing a collaborative therapeutic relationship. The consequences of not providing a service that is neither widely available nor widely used are less serious than not providing a service accepted by the medical profession and thus expected by patients. Furthermore, ingrained care practices are difficult to change, and efforts should preferentially be directed to changing those practices for which the evidence to support change is compelling.

Although the reviewers did not explicitly recognize it when these domains were chosen, the domains all involve consideration of the potential consequences—for patients, clinicians, and systems—of providing or not providing a service. Others writing about medical decision making in the face of uncertainty have suggested that the consequences of action or inaction should play a prominent role in decisions.

Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Recommendations

What the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Grades Mean and Suggestions for Practice

Grade Grade Definitions Suggestions for Practice
A The USPSTF recommends the service. There is high certainty that the net benefit is substantial. Offer or provide this service.
B The USPSTF recommends the service. There is high certainty that the net benefit is moderate or there is moderate certainty that the net benefit is moderate to substantial. Offer or provide this service.
C The USPSTF recommends selectively offering or providing this service to individual patients based on professional judgment and patient preferences. There is at least moderate certainty that the net benefit is small. Offer or provide this service only if other considerations support offering or providing the service in an individual patient.
D The USPSTF recommends against the service. There is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits. Discourage the use of this service.
I Statement The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of the service. Evidence is lacking, of poor quality, or conflicting, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be measured. Read "Clinical Considerations" section of USPSTF Recommendation Statement (see the "Major Recommendations" field). If the service is offered, patients should understand the uncertainty about the balance of benefits and harms.

USPSTF Levels of Certainty Regarding Net Benefit

Definition : The USPSTF defines certainty as “likelihood that the USPSTF assessment of the net benefit of a preventive service is correct.” The net benefit is defined as benefit minus harm of the preventive service as implemented in a general, primary care population. The USPSTF assigns a certainty level based on the nature of the overall evidence available to assess the net benefit of a preventive service.

Level of Certainty Description
High The available evidence usually includes consistent results from well-designed, well-conducted studies in representative primary care populations. These studies assess the effects of the preventive service on health outcomes. This conclusion is therefore unlikely to be strongly affected by the results of future studies.
Moderate The available evidence is sufficient to determine the effects of the preventive service on health outcomes, but confidence in the estimate is constrained by factors such as: * The number, size, or quality of individual studies * Inconsistency of findings across individual studies * Limited generalizability of findings to routine primary care practice; and * Lack of coherence in the chain of evidence As more information becomes available, the magnitude or direction of the observed effect could change, and this change may be large enough to alter the conclusion.
Low The available evidence is insufficient to assess effects on health outcomes. Evidence is insufficient because of: * The limited number or size of studies * Important flaws in study design or methods * Inconsistency of findings across individual studies * Gaps in the chain of evidence * Findings not generalizable to routine primary care practice; and * A lack of information on important health outcomes More information may allow an estimation of effects on health outcomes.

Cost Analysis

A formal cost analysis was not performed and published cost analyses were not reviewed.

Method of Guideline Validation

  • Comparison with Guidelines from Other Groups
  • External Peer Review
  • Internal Peer Review

Description of Method of Guideline Validation

Peer Review. Before the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) makes its final determinations about recommendations on a given preventive service, the Evidence-based Practice Center and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality send a draft evidence review to 4 to 6 external experts and to Federal agencies and professional and disease-based health organizations with interests in the topic. The experts are asked to examine the review critically for accuracy and completeness and to respond to a series of specific questions about the document. After assembling these external review comments and documenting the proposed response to key comments, the topic team presents this information to the USPSTF in memo form. In this way, the USPSTF can consider these external comments before it votes on its recommendations about the service. Draft recommendation statements are then circulated for comment among reviewers representing professional societies, voluntary organizations, and Federal agencies, as well as posted on the Task Force Web site for public comment. These comments are discussed before the final recommendations are confirmed.

Response to Public Comments. A draft version of this recommendation statement was posted for public comment on the USPSTF Web site from 22 January to 18 February 2013. Several comments agreed with the draft recommendation; several other comments noted the limitations of using Child Protective Services (CPS) reports as a measure of child maltreatment. The USPSTF recognizes the limitations of the evidence on child maltreatment measures and outcomes and added this to the Research Needs and Gaps section. A few comments expressed confusion over the meaning of “primary care–referable”; this was clarified in the statement. One comment requested clarification of the description of the Safe Environment for Every Kid model study, which was added to the Discussion section.

Comparison with Guidelines from Other Groups. Recommendations from the following groups were discussed: the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, and the Community Preventive Services Task Force.

Evidence Supporting the Recommendations

Type of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations

The type of supporting evidence is not specifically stated for each recommendation.

Benefits/Harms of Implementing the Guideline Recommendations

Potential Benefits

Benefits of Interventions

There is inadequate evidence that primary care interventions can prevent maltreatment among children who do not already have signs or symptoms of such treatment. Reasons for this conclusion include significant heterogeneity in study methods and interventions. There is also inconsistent and limited evidence on outcomes or how they were measured.

Potential Harms

Harms of Detection and Early Intervention or Treatment

Although there are numerous concerns about the possible harms of interventions for child maltreatment, evidence of these harms is limited.

Potential Harms

Reported potential harms include dissolution of families, legal concerns, and an increased risk for further harm to the child.

Qualifying Statements

Qualifying Statements

  • The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) makes recommendations about the effectiveness of specific clinical preventive services for patients without related signs or symptoms.
  • It bases its recommendations on the evidence of both the benefits and harms of the service and an assessment of the balance. The USPSTF does not consider the costs of providing a service in this assessment.
  • The USPSTF recognizes that clinical decisions involve more considerations than evidence alone. Clinicians should understand the evidence but individualize decision making to the specific patient or situation. Similarly, the USPSTF notes that policy and coverage decisions involve considerations in addition to the evidence of clinical benefits and harms.
  • Recommendations made by the USPSTF are independent of the U.S. government. They should not be construed as an official position of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Implementation of the Guideline

Description of Implementation Strategy

The experiences of the first and second U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), as well as that of other evidence-based guideline efforts, have highlighted the importance of identifying effective ways to implement clinical recommendations. Practice guidelines are relatively weak tools for changing clinical practice when used in isolation. To effect change, guidelines must be coupled with strategies to improve their acceptance and feasibility. Such strategies include enlisting the support of local opinion leaders, using reminder systems for clinicians and patients, adopting standing orders, and audit and feedback of information to clinicians about their compliance with recommended practice.

In the case of preventive services guidelines, implementation needs to go beyond traditional dissemination and promotion efforts to recognize the added patient and clinician barriers that affect preventive care. These include clinicians’ ambivalence about whether preventive medicine is part of their job, the psychological and practical challenges that patients face in changing behaviors, lack of access to health care or of insurance coverage for preventive services for some patients, competing pressures within the context of shorter office visits, and the lack of organized systems in most practices to ensure the delivery of recommended preventive care.

Dissemination strategies have changed dramatically in this age of electronic information. While recognizing the continuing value of journals and other print formats for dissemination, the USPSTF will make all its products available through its Web site. The combination of electronic access and extensive material in the public domain should make it easier for a broad audience of users to access USPSTF materials and adapt them for their local needs. Online access to USPSTF products also opens up new possibilities for the appearance of the annual, pocket-size Guide to Clinical Preventive Services.

To be successful, approaches for implementing prevention have to be tailored to the local level and deal with the specific barriers at a given site, typically requiring the redesign of systems of care. Such a systems approach to prevention has had notable success in established staff-model health maintenance organizations, by addressing organization of care, emphasizing a philosophy of prevention, and altering the training and incentives for clinicians. Staff-model plans also benefit from integrated information systems that can track the use of needed services and generate automatic reminders aimed at patients and clinicians, some of the most consistently successful interventions. Information systems remain a major challenge for individual clinicians’ offices, however, as well as for looser affiliations of practices in network-model managed care and independent practice associations, where data on patient visits, referrals, and test results are not always centralized.

Implementation Tools

  • Mobile Device Resources
  • Patient Resources
  • Pocket Guide/Reference Cards
  • Staff Training/Competency Material

Institute of Medicine (IOM) National Healthcare Quality Report Categories

IOM Care Need

  • Staying Healthy

IOM Domain

  • Effectiveness
  • Patient-centeredness

Identifying Information and Availability

Bibliographic Source(s)

  • U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Primary care interventions to prevent child maltreatment: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2013 Aug 20;159(4):289-95. [50 references] PubMed

Adaptation

Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.

Date Released

1996 (revised 2013 Aug 20)

Guideline Developer(s)

  • U.S. Preventive Services Task Force - Independent Expert Panel

Guideline Developer Comment

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is a Federally-appointed panel of independent experts. Conclusions of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force do not necessarily reflect policy of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) or its agencies.

Source(s) of Funding

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is an independent, voluntary body. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF.

Guideline Committee

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)

Composition of Group That Authored the Guideline

Task Force Members* : Virginia A. Moyer, MD, MPH ( Chair ) (American Board of Pediatrics, Chapel Hill, North Carolina); Michael L. LeFevre, MD, MSPH ( Co-Vice Chair ) (University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, Missouri); Albert L. Siu, MD, MSPH ( Co-Vice Chair ) (Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, and James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Bronx, New York); Linda Ciofu Baumann, PhD, RN (University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin); Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD (University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California); Susan J. Curry, PhD (University of Iowa College of Public Health, Iowa City, Iowa); Mark Ebell, MD, MS (University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia); Glenn Flores, MD (University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas); Francisco A.R. García, MD, MPH (Pima County Department of Health, Tucson, Arizona); Adelita Gonzales Cantu, RN, PhD (University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas); David C. Grossman, MD, MPH (Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington); Jessica Herzstein, MD, MPH (Air Products, Allentown, Pennsylvania); Wanda K. Nicholson, MD, MPH, MBA (University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina); Douglas K. Owens, MD, MS (Veteran Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, and Stanford University, Stanford, California); William R. Phillips, MD, MPH (University of Washington, Seattle, Washington); and Michael P. Pignone, MD, MPH (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina). Bernadette Melnyk, PhD, RN, a former USPSTF member, also contributed to the development of this recommendation.

*Members of the Task Force at the time this recommendation was finalized. For a list of current Task Force members, go tohttp://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Name/our-members.

Financial Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has an explicit policy concerning conflict of interest. All members disclose at each meeting if they have a significant financial, professional/business, or intellectual conflict for each topic being discussed. USPSTF members with conflicts may be recused from discussing or voting on recommendations about the topic in question.

Potential Conflicts of Interest: None disclosed. Disclosure forms form USPSTF members can be viewed at https://www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M13-1141.

Guideline Status

This is the current release of the guideline.

This guideline updates a previous version: Screening for family and intimate partner violence: recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Mar 2;140(5):382-6.

Guideline Availability

Electronic copies: Available from the Annals of Internal Medicine Web site.

Availability of Companion Documents

The following are available:

Evidence Reviews:

  • Selph SS, Bougatsos C, Blazina I, Nelson HD. Behavioral interventions and counseling to prevent child abuse and neglect: a systematic review to update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:179-190.
  • Nelson HD, Selph S, Bougatsos C, Blazina I. Behavioral interventions and counseling to prevent child abuse and neglect: systematic review to update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Evidence Synthesis No. 98. AHRQ Publication No. 13-05176-EF-1. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013 Jan. 104 p.

Electronic copies: Available from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Web site.

Background Articles:

  • Barton MB et al. How to read the new recommendation statement: methods update from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2007;147:123-127.
  • Guirguis-Blake J et al. Current processes of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: refining evidence-based recommendation development. Ann Intern Med 2007;147:117-122.
  • Sawaya GF et al. Update on the methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: estimating certainty and magnitude of net benefit. Ann Intern Med 2007;147:871-875.
  • Petitti DB et al. Update on the methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: insufficient evidence. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:199-205.

Electronic copies: Available from the USPSTF Web site.

The following are also available:

  • The guide to clinical preventive services, 2012. Recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), 2012. 128 p. Electronic copies available from the AHRQ Web site. See the related QualityTool summary on the Health Care Innovations Exchange Web site.
  • Primary care interventions to prevent child maltreatment. Clinical summary of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. 2013 Aug. Electronic copies: Available from the USPSTF Web site.
  • Primary care interventions to prevent child maltreatment. CME course. Electronic copies: Available from the Annals of Internal Medicine Web site.

The Electronic Preventive Services Selector (ePSS) is an application designed to provide primary care clinicians and health care teams timely decision support regarding appropriate screening, counseling, and preventive services for their patients. It is based on the current, evidence-based recommendations of the USPSTF and can be searched by specific patient characteristics, such as age, sex, and selected behavioral risk factors.

Patient Resources

The following are available:

  • Primary care intervention to prevent child maltreatment. Understanding task force recommendations. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Consumer fact sheet. 2013 Jun. 3 p. Electronic copies: Available from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Web site.
  • Primary care interventions to prevent child maltreatment: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Summary for patients. 2013 Aug 20;159(4):I-30. Electronic copies: Available from the Annals of Internal Medicine Web site.

Print copies: Available in English from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Publications Clearinghouse. For more information, go to http://www.ahrq.gov/news/pubsix.htm or call 1-800-358-9295 (U.S. only).

Myhealthfinder is a new tool that provides personalized recommendations for clinical preventive services specific to the user’s age, gender, and pregnancy status. It features evidence-based recommendations from the USPSTF and is available at www.healthfinder.gov.

Please note: This patient information is intended to provide health professionals with information to share with their patients to help them better understand their health and their diagnosed disorders. By providing access to this patient information, it is not the intention of NGC to provide specific medical advice for particular patients. Rather we urge patients and their representatives to review this material and then to consult with a licensed health professional for evaluation of treatment options suitable for them as well as for diagnosis and answers to their personal medical questions. This patient information has been derived and prepared from a guideline for health care professionals included on NGC by the authors or publishers of that original guideline. The patient information is not reviewed by NGC to establish whether or not it accurately reflects the original guideline’s content.

NGC Status

This summary was completed by ECRI on June 30, 1998. The information was verified by the guideline developer on December 1, 1998. This summary was updated by ECRI on February 23, 2004. The information was verified by the guideline developer on March 1, 2004. This summary was updated by ECRI Institute on September 12, 2013.

Requests regarding copyright should be sent to: Lisa S. Nicolella, Senior Editor, Office of Communications and Knowledge Transfer, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; E-mail: lisa.nicolella@ahrq.hhs.gov.

Disclaimer

NGC Disclaimer

The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.

All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional associations, public or private organizations, other government agencies, health care organizations or plans, and similar entities.

Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria.

NGC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover, the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC, AHRQ, or its contractor ECRI Institute, and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.

Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer.