Mass screening

About: Mass screening is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 34508 publications have been published within this topic receiving 1365148 citations.

Use of the Pediatric Symptom Checklist to Screen for Psychosocial Problems in Pediatric Primary Care: A National Feasibility Study

Abstract: Background Routine use of a brief psychosocial screening instrument has been proposed as a means of improving recognition, management, and referral of children's psychosocial morbidity in primary care. Objective To assess the feasibility of routine psychosocial screening using the Pediatric Symptom Checklist (PSC) in pediatrics by using a brief version of the checklist in a large sample representative of the full range of pediatric practice settings in the United States and Canada. We evaluated large-scale screening and the performance of the PSC in detecting psychosocial problems by (1) determining whether the prevalence of psychosocial dysfunction identified by the PSC was consistent with findings in previous, smaller samples; (2) assessing whether the prevalence of positive PSC screening scores varied by population subgroups; and (3) determining whether the PSC was completed by a significant proportion of parents from all subgroups and settings. Patients and Methods Twenty-one thousand sixty-five children between the ages of 4 and 15 years were seen in 2 large primary care networks: the Ambulatory Sentinel Practice Network and the Pediatric Research in Office Settings network, involving 395 pediatric and family practice clinicians in 44 states, Puerto Rico, and 4 Canadian provinces. Parents were asked to complete a brief questionnaire that included demographic information, history of mental health services, the 35-item PSC, and the number of pediatric visits within the past 6 months. Results The overall prevalence rates of psychosocial dysfunction as measured by the PSC in school-aged and preschool-aged pediatric outpatients (13% and 10%, respectively) were nearly identical to the rates that had been reported in several smaller samples (12%-14% among school-aged children and 7%-14% among preschoolers). Consistent with previous findings, children from low-income families were twice as likely to be scored as dysfunctional on the PSC than were children from higher-income families. Similarly, children from single-parent as opposed to those from 2-parent families and children with a past history of mental health services showed an elevated risk of psychosocial impairment. The current study was the first to demonstrate a 50% increase in risk of impairment for male children. The overall rate of completed forms was 97%, well within an acceptable range, and at least 94% of the parents in each sociodemographic subgroup completed the PSC form. Conclusions Use of the PSC offers an approach to the recognition of psychosocial dysfunction that is sufficiently consistent across groups and locales to become part of comprehensive pediatric care in virtually all outpatient settings. In addition to its clinical utility, the consistency and widespread acceptability of the PSC make it well suited for the next generation of pediatric mental health services research, which can address whether earlier recognition of and intervention for psychosocial problems in pediatrics will lead to cost-effective outcomes.

Cancer screening in the United States, 2009: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening

Abstract: Each year, the American Cancer Society (ACS) publishes a report summarizing its recommendations for early cancer detection, data and trends in cancer screening rates, and select issues related to cancer screening. In 2008, the ACS, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American College of Gastroenterology, the Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the American College of Radiology issued a joint update of guidelines for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults. In this issue, the current ACS guidelines and recent issues are summarized, updates of testing guidelines for early prostate cancer detection and colorectal cancer screening by the United States Preventive Services Task Force are discussed, and the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the National Health Interview Survey pertaining to participation rates in cancer screening are described.

European Society for Swallowing Disorders - European Union Geriatric Medicine Society white paper: oropharyngeal dysphagia as a geriatric syndrome.

Abstract: This position document has been developed by the Dysphagia Working Group, a committee of members from the European Society for Swallowing Disorders and the European Union Geriatric Medicine Society, and invited experts. It consists of 12 sections that cover all aspects of clinical management of oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD) related to geriatric medicine and discusses prevalence, quality of life, and legal and ethical issues, as well as health economics and social burden. OD constitutes impaired or uncomfortable transit of food or liquids from the oral cavity to the esophagus, and it is included in the World Health Organization’s classification of diseases. It can cause severe complications such as malnutrition, dehydration, respiratory infections, aspiration pneumonia, and increased readmissions, institutionalization, and morbimortality. OD is a prevalent and serious problem among all phenotypes of older patients as oropharyngeal swallow response is impaired in older people and can cause aspiration. Despite its prevalence and severity, OD is still underdiagnosed and untreated in many medical centers. There are several validated clinical and instrumental methods (videofluoroscopy and fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing) to diagnose OD, and treatment is mainly based on compensatory measures, although new treatments to stimulate the oropharyngeal swallow response are under research. OD matches the definition of a geriatric syndrome as it is highly prevalent among older people, is caused by multiple factors, is associated with several comorbidities and poor prognosis, and needs a multidimensional approach to be treated. OD should be given more importance and attention and thus be included in all standard screening protocols, treated, and regularly monitored to prevent its main complications. More research is needed to develop and standardize new treatments and management protocols for older patients with OD, which is a challenging mission for our societies.

Why screening tests to predict injury do not work—and probably never will…: a critical review

Abstract: This paper addresses if and how a periodic health examination to screen for risk factors for injury can be used to mitigate injury risk. The key question asked is whether it is possible to use screening tests to identify who is at risk for a sports injury-in order to address the deficit through a targeted intervention programme. The paper demonstrates that to validate a screening test to predict and prevent sports injuries, at least 3 steps are needed. First, a strong relationship needs to be demonstrated in prospective studies between a marker from a screening test and injury risk (step 1). Second, the test properties need to be examined in relevant populations, using appropriate statistical tools (step 2). Unfortunately, there is currently no example of a screening test for sports injuries with adequate test properties. Given the nature of potential screening tests (where test performance is usually measured on a continuous scale from low to high), substantial overlap is to be expected between players with high and low risk of injury. Therefore, although there are a number of tests demonstrating a statistically significant association with injury risk, and therefore help the understanding of causative factors, such tests are unlikely to be able to predict injury with sufficient accuracy. The final step needed is to document that an intervention programme targeting athletes identified as being at high risk through a screening programme is more beneficial than the same intervention programme given to all athletes (step 3). To date, there is no intervention study providing support for screening for injury risk.