Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28376457›Full record

ArticleAnnals of family medicine2017

Updated Priorities Among Effective Clinical Preventive Services.

Michael V Maciosek, Amy B LaFrance, Steven P Dehmer, Dana A McGree, Thomas J Flottemesch, Zack Xu, Leif I Solberg

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of family medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 73 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

73 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Clinical Decision Support with or without Shared Decision Making to Improve Preventive Cancer Care: A Cluster-Randomized Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Sex and income inequalities in preventive services in diabetes.The European journal of general practice · 2023
    Article

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Michael V MaciosekHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota michael.v.maciosek@healthpartners.com.
Amy B LaFranceHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Steven P DehmerHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Dana A McGreeHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Thomas J FlottemeschHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Zack XuHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Leif I SolbergHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Funding

A NATIONAL COALITION TO ENHANCE STD/HIV PREVENTION THROUGH PROMOTION OF A HOLISTIH25PS003610 · PS · PARTNERSHIP FOR PREVENTION · PI KRISTENSEN, ALYSON · 2011 to 2015
$4.7M
NCHHSTP CDC HHS H25 PS003610
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's provisions for first-dollar coverage of evidence-based preventive services have reduced an important barrier to receipt of preventive care. Safety-net providers, however, still serve a substantial uninsured population, and clinician and patient time remain limited in all primary care settings. As a consequence, decision makers continue to set priorities to help focus their efforts. This report updates estimates of relative health impact and cost-effectiveness for evidence-based preventive services.

methodsWe assessed the potential impact of 28 evidence-based clinical preventive services in terms of their cost-effectiveness and clinically preventable burden, as measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved. Each service received 1 to 5 points on each of the 2 measures-cost-effectiveness and clinically preventable burden-for a total score ranging from 2 to 10. New microsimulation models were used to provide updated estimates of 12 of these services. Priorities for improving delivery rates were established by comparing the ranking with what is known of current delivery rates nationally.

resultsThe 3 highest-ranking services, each with a total score of 10, are immunizing children, counseling to prevent tobacco initiation among youth, and tobacco-use screening and brief intervention to encourage cessation among adults. Greatest population health improvement could be obtained from increasing utilization of clinical preventive services that address tobacco use, obesity-related behaviors, and alcohol misuse, as well as colorectal cancer screening and influenza vaccinations.

conclusionsThis study identifies high-priority preventive services and should help decision makers select which services to emphasize in quality-improvement initiatives.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultChildColorectal NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHealth PrioritiesHumansMaleMass ScreeningObesityPatient Protection and Affordable Care ActPreventive Health ServicesQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSafety-net ProvidersTobacco Usebehavioral counselingcost-effectivenesscost-savingsdisease, prevention & controleconomicshealth impacthealth servicesimmunizationmass screeningprioritization

Identifiers

PMID28376457
PMCPMC5217840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.