Screening for Speech and Language Delay and Disorders in Children 5 Years or Younger: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Children with speech and language difficulties are at risk for learning and behavioral problems. Objective: To review the evidence on screening for speech and language delay or disorders in children 5 years or younger to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, ERIC, Linguistic and Language Behavior Abstracts (ProQuest), and trial registries through January 17, 2023; surveillance through November 24, 2023. Study Selection: English-language studies of screening test accuracy, trials or cohort studies comparing screening vs no screening; randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of interventions. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, study quality, and data extraction; results were narratively summarized. Main Outcomes and Measures: Screening test accuracy, speech and language outcomes, school performance, function, quality of life, and harms. Results: Thirty-eight studies in 41 articles were included (N = 9006). No study evaluated the direct benefits of screening vs no screening. Twenty-one studies (n = 7489) assessed the accuracy of 23 different screening tools that varied with regard to whether they were designed to be completed by parents vs trained examiners, and to screen for global (any) language problems vs specific skills (eg, expressive language). Three studies assessing parent-reported tools for expressive language skills found consistently high sensitivity (range, 88%-93%) and specificity (range, 88%-85%). The accuracy of other screening tools varied widely. Seventeen RCTs (n = 1517) evaluated interventions for speech and language delay or disorders, although none enrolled children identified by routine screening in primary care. Two RCTs evaluating relatively intensive parental group training interventions (11 sessions) found benefit for different measures of expressive language skills, and 1 evaluating a less intensive intervention (6 sessions) found no difference between groups for any outcome. Two RCTs (n = 76) evaluating the Lidcombe Program of Early Stuttering Intervention delivered by speech-language pathologists featuring parent training found a 2.3% to 3.0% lower proportion of syllables stuttered at 9 months compared with the control group when delivered in clinic and via telehealth, respectively. Evidence on other interventions was limited. No RCTs reported on the harms of interventions. Conclusions and Relevance: No studies directly assessed the benefits and harms of screening. Some parent-reported screening tools for expressive language skills had reasonable accuracy for detecting expressive language delay. Group parent training programs for speech delay that provided at least 11 parental training sessions improved expressive language skills, and a stuttering intervention delivered by speech-language pathologists reduced stuttering frequency.

Screening for Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with adverse health outcomes. Objective: To review the evidence on screening for OSA in asymptomatic adults or those with unrecognized OSA symptoms to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and trial registries through August 23, 2021; surveillance through September 23, 2022. Study Selection: English-language studies of screening test accuracy, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of screening or treatment of OSA reporting health outcomes or harms, and systematic reviews of treatment reporting changes in blood pressure and apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) scores. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality. Meta-analysis of intervention trials. Main Outcomes and Measures: Test accuracy, excessive daytime sleepiness, sleep-related and general health-related quality of life (QOL), and harms. Results: Eighty-six studies were included (N = 11 051). No study directly compared screening with no screening. Screening accuracy of the Multivariable Apnea Prediction score followed by unattended home sleep testing for detecting severe OSA syndrome (AHI ≥30 and Epworth Sleepiness Scale [ESS] score >10) measured as the area under the curve in 2 studies (n = 702) was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.82) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.90). Five studies assessing the accuracy of other screening tools were heterogeneous and results were inconsistent. Compared with inactive control, positive airway pressure was associated with a significant improvement in ESS score from baseline (pooled mean difference, -2.33 [95% CI, -2.75 to -1.90]; 47 trials; n = 7024), sleep-related QOL (standardized mean difference, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.19 to 0.42]; 17 trials; n = 3083), and general health-related QOL measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) mental health component summary score change (pooled mean difference, 2.20 [95% CI, 0.95 to 3.44]; 15 trials; n = 2345) and SF-36 physical health component summary score change (pooled mean difference, 1.53 [95% CI, 0.29 to 2.77]; 13 trials; n = 2031). Use of mandibular advancement devices was also associated with a significantly larger ESS score change compared with controls (pooled mean difference, -1.67 [95% CI, 2.09 to -1.25]; 10 trials; n = 1540). Reporting of other health outcomes was sparse; no included trial found significant benefit associated with treatment on mortality, cardiovascular events, or motor vehicle crashes. In 3 systematic reviews, positive airway pressure was significantly associated with reduced blood pressure; however, the difference was relatively small (2-3 mm Hg). Conclusions and Relevance: The accuracy and clinical utility of OSA screening tools that could be used in primary care settings were uncertain. Positive airway pressure and mandibular advancement devices reduced ESS score. Trials of positive airway pressure found modest improvement in sleep-related and general health-related QOL but have not established whether treatment reduces mortality or improves most other health outcomes.

Screening for Depression and Suicide Risk in Children and Adolescents: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Depression, suicidal ideation, and self-harm behaviors in youth are associated with functional impairment and suicide. Objective: To review the evidence on screening for depression or suicide risk in children and adolescents to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and trial registries through July 19, 2021; references, experts, and surveillance through June 1, 2022. Study Selection: English-language, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of screening for depression or suicide risk; diagnostic test accuracy studies; RCTs of psychotherapy and first-line pharmacotherapy; RCTs, observational studies, and systematic reviews reporting harms. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers assessed titles/abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality and extracted data; when at least 3 similar studies were available, meta-analyses were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: Test accuracy, symptoms, response, remission, loss of diagnosis, mortality, functioning, suicide-related events, and adverse events. Results: Twenty-one studies (N = 5433) were included for depression and 19 studies (N = 6290) for suicide risk. For depression, no studies reported on the direct effects of screening on health outcomes, and 7 studies (n = 3281) reported sensitivity of screening instruments ranging from 0.59 to 0.94 and specificity from 0.38 to 0.96. Depression treatment with psychotherapy was associated with improved symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory pooled standardized mean difference, -0.58 [95% CI, -0.83 to -0.34]; n = 471; 4 studies; and Hamilton Depression Scale pooled mean difference, -2.25 [95% CI, -4.09 to -0.41]; n = 262; 3 studies) clinical response (3 studies with statistically significant results using varying thresholds), and loss of diagnosis (relative risk, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.00 to 3.00; n = 395; 4 studies). Pharmacotherapy was associated with improvement on symptoms (Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised mean difference, -3.76 [95% CI, -5.95 to -1.57; n = 793; 3 studies), remission (relative risk, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.45]; n = 793; 3 studies) and functioning (Children's Global Assessment Scale pooled mean difference, 2.60 (95% CI, 0.78 to 4.42; n = 793; 3 studies). Other outcomes were not statistically significantly different. Differences in suicide-related outcomes and adverse events for pharmacotherapy when compared with placebo were not statistically significant. For suicide risk, no studies reported on the direct benefits of screening on health outcomes, and 2 RCTs (n = 2675) reported no harms of screening. One study (n = 581) reported on sensitivity of screening, ranging from 0.87 to 0.91; specificity was 0.60. Sixteen RCTs (n = 3034) reported on suicide risk interventions. Interventions were associated with lower scores for the Beck Hopelessness Scale (pooled mean difference, -2.35 [95% CI, -4.06 to -0.65]; n = 644; 4 RCTs). Findings for other suicide-related outcomes were mixed or not statistically significantly different. Conclusion and Relevance: Indirect evidence suggested that some screening instruments were reasonably accurate for detecting depression. Psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy were associated with some benefits and no statistically significant harms for depression, but the evidence was limited for suicide risk screening instruments and interventions.

Screening for Anxiety in Children and Adolescents: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Anxiety in children and adolescents is associated with impaired functioning, educational underachievement, and future mental health conditions. Objective: To review the evidence on screening for anxiety in children and adolescents to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and trial registries through July 19, 2021; references, experts, and surveillance through June 1, 2022. Study Selection: English-language, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of screening; diagnostic test accuracy studies; RCTs of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or US Food and Drug Administration-approved pharmacotherapy; RCTs, observational studies, and systematic reviews reporting harms. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers assessed titles/abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality and extracted data; when at least 3 similar studies were available, meta-analyses were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: Test accuracy, symptoms, response, remission, loss of diagnosis, all-cause mortality, functioning, suicide-related symptoms or events, adverse events. Results: Thirty-nine studies (N = 6065) were included. No study reported on the direct benefits or harms of screening on health outcomes. Ten studies (n = 3260) reported the sensitivity of screening instruments, ranging from 0.34 to 1.00, with specificity ranging from 0.47 to 0.99. Twenty-nine RCTs (n = 2805) reported on treatment: 22 on CBT, 6 on pharmacotherapy, and 1 on CBT, sertraline, and CBT plus sertraline. CBT was associated with gains on several pooled measures of symptom improvement (magnitude of change varied by outcome measure), response (pooled relative risk [RR], 1.89 [95% CI, 1.17 to 3.05]; n = 606; 6 studies), remission (RR, 2.68 [95% CI, 1.48 to 4.88]; n = 321; 4 studies), and loss of diagnosis (RR range, 3.02-3.09) when compared with usual care or wait-list controls. The evidence on functioning for CBT was mixed. Pharmacotherapy, when compared with placebo, was associated with gains on 2 pooled measures of symptom improvement-mean difference (Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale mean difference, -4.0 [95% CI, -5.5 to -2.5]; n = 726; 5 studies; and Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale mean difference, -0.84 [95% CI, -1.13 to -0.55]; n = 550; 4 studies) and response (RR, 2.11 [95% CI, 1.58 to 2.98]; n = 370; 5 studies)-but was mixed on measures of functioning. Eleven RCTs (n = 1293) reported harms of anxiety treatments. Suicide-related harms were rare, and the differences were not statistically significantly different. Conclusions and Relevance: Indirect evidence suggested that some screening instruments were reasonably accurate. CBT and pharmacotherapy were associated with benefits; no statistically significant association with harms was reported.

Screening for Hearing Loss in Older Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Hearing loss is common in older adults and associated with adverse health and social outcomes. Objective: To update the evidence review on screening for hearing loss in adults 50 years or older to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and trial registries through January 17, 2020; references; and experts; literature surveillance through October 8, 2020. Study Selection: English-language studies of accuracy, screening, and interventions for screen-detected or newly detected hearing loss. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality. Meta-analysis of screening test accuracy studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality of life and function, other health and social outcomes, test accuracy, and harms. Results: Forty-one studies (N = 26 386) were included, 18 of which were new since the previous review. One trial enrolling US veterans (n = 2305) assessed the benefits of screening; there was no significant difference in the proportion of participants experiencing a minimum clinically important difference in hearing-related function at 1 year (36%-40% in the screened groups vs 36% in the nonscreened group). Thirty-four studies (n = 23 228) evaluated test accuracy. For detecting mild hearing loss (>20-25 dB), single-question screening had a pooled sensitivity of 66% (95% CI, 58%-73%) and a pooled specificity of 76% (95% CI, 68%-83%) (10 studies, n = 12 637); for detecting moderate hearing loss (>35-40 dB), pooled sensitivity was 80% (95% CI, 68%-88%) and pooled specificity was 74% (95% CI, 59%-85%) (6 studies, n = 8774). In 5 studies (n = 2820) on the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening to detect moderate hearing loss (>40 dB), pooled sensitivity was 68% (95% CI, 52%-81%) and pooled specificity was 78% (95% CI, 67%-86%). Six trials (n = 853) evaluated amplification vs control in populations with screen-detected or recently detected hearing loss over 6 weeks to 4 months. Five measured hearing-related function via the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly; only 3 that enrolled veterans (n = 684) found a significant difference considered to represent a minimal important difference (>18.7 points). Few trials reported on other eligible outcomes, and no studies reported on harms of screening or interventions. Conclusions and Relevance: Several screening tests can adequately detect hearing loss in older adults; no studies reported on the harms of screening or treatment. Evidence showing benefit from hearing aids on hearing-related function among adults with screen-detected or newly detected hearing loss is limited to studies enrolling veterans.

Screening for Intimate Partner Violence, Elder Abuse, and Abuse of Vulnerable Adults: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Intimate partner violence (IPV), elder abuse, and abuse of vulnerable adults are common and result in adverse health outcomes. Objective: To review the evidence on screening and interventions for IPV, elder abuse, and abuse of vulnerable adults to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and trial registries through October 4, 2017; references; experts; literature surveillance through August 1, 2018. Study Selection: English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs), studies evaluating test accuracy, and cohort studies with a concurrent control group assessing harms. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of titles and abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings. Data were not pooled, primarily because of heterogeneity of populations, interventions, and outcomes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Abuse or neglect, morbidity caused by abuse, test accuracy, and harms. Results: Thirty studies were included (N = 14 959). Three RCTs (n = 3759) compared IPV screening with no screening; none found significant improvements in outcomes (eg, IPV or quality of life) over 3 to 18 months and 2 (n = 935) reported no harms of screening. Nine studies assessed tools to detect any past-year or current IPV in women; for past-year IPV (5 studies [n = 6331]), sensitivity of 5 tools ranged from 65% to 87% and specificity ranged from 80% to 95%. The accuracy of 5 tools (4 studies [n = 1795]) for detecting current abuse varied widely; sensitivity ranged from 46% to 94% and specificity ranged from 38% to 95%. Eleven RCTs (n = 6740) evaluated interventions for women with screen-detected IPV. Two enrolling pregnant women (n = 575) found significantly less IPV among women in the intervention group: 1 home visiting intervention (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.34 [95% CI, -0.59 to -0.08]) and 1 behavioral counseling intervention for multiple risks (IPV, smoking, depression, tobacco exposure) (SMD, -0.40 [95% CI, -0.68 to -0.12]). No studies evaluated screening or interventions for elder abuse or abuse of vulnerable adults. One study assessing a screening tool for elder abuse had poor accuracy (sensitivity, 46% and specificity, 73% for detecting physical or verbal abuse). Conclusions and Relevance: Although available screening tools may reasonably identify women experiencing IPV, trials of IPV screening in adult women did not show a reduction in IPV or improvement in quality of life over 3 to 18 months. Limited evidence suggested that home visiting and behavioral counseling interventions that address multiple risk factors may lead to reduced IPV among pregnant or postpartum women. No studies assessed screening or treatment for elder abuse and abuse of vulnerable adults.

Vision Screening in Children Aged 6 Months to 5 Years: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Preschool vision screening could allow detection and treatment of vision abnormalities during a critical developmental stage, preserving function and quality of life. Objective: To review the evidence on screening for and treatment of amblyopia, its risk factors, and refractive error in children aged 6 months to 5 years to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and trial registries through June 2016; references; and experts, with surveillance of the literature through June 7, 2017. Study Selection: English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or prospective cohort studies that evaluated screening, studies evaluating test accuracy, RCTs of treatment vs inactive controls, and cohort studies or case-control studies assessing harms. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings. Studies were not quantitatively pooled because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity. Main Outcomes and Measures: Visual acuity, amblyopia, school performance, functioning, quality of life, test accuracy, testability, and harms. Results: Forty studies were included (N = 34 709); 34 evaluated test accuracy. No RCTs compared screening with no screening, and no studies evaluated school performance, function, or quality of life. Studies directly assessing earlier or more intensive screening were limited by high attrition. Positive likelihood ratios were between 5 and 10 for amblyopia risk factors or nonamblyogenic refractive error in most studies of test accuracy and were greater than 10 in most studies evaluating combinations of clinical tests. Inability to cooperate may limit use of some tests in children younger than 3 years. Studies with low prevalence (<10%) of vision abnormalities showed high false-positive rates (usually >75%). Among children with amblyopia risk factors (eg, strabismus or anisometropia), patching improved visual acuity of the amblyopic eye by a mean of less than 1 line on a standard chart after 5 to 12 weeks for children pretreated with glasses (2 RCTs, 240 participants); more children treated with patching than with no patching experienced improvement of at least 2 lines (45% vs 21%; P = .003; 1 RCT, 180 participants). Patching plus glasses improved visual acuity by about 1 line after 1 year (0.11 logMAR [95% CI, 0.05-0.17]) for children not pretreated with glasses (1 RCT, 177 participants). Glasses alone improved visual acuity by less than 1 line after 1 year (0.08 logMAR [95% CI, 0.02-0.15], 1 RCT, 177 participants). Conclusions and Relevance: Studies directly evaluating the effectiveness of screening were limited and do not establish whether vision screening in preschool children is better than no screening. Indirect evidence supports the utility of multiple screening tests for identifying preschool children at higher risk for vision problems and the effectiveness of some treatments for improving visual acuity outcomes.

Examining Parents' Experiences and Information Needs Regarding Early Identification of Developmental Delays: Qualitative Research to Inform a Public Health Campaign.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the approach and materials of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's "Learn the Signs. Act Early." (LTSAE) health education campaign, which aims to improve awareness of developmental milestones and early warning signs of developmental delay among parents of young children. METHODS: We conducted 2 phases of qualitative research. Focus groups assessed the campaign's objectives by exploring the experiences of parents with children who have developmental delays or disabilities to determine facilitators of and barriers to identification. In-depth interviews were conducted with parents of typically developing children, who reviewed campaign materials and provided feedback on appropriateness, appeal, and clarity with regard to the campaign's objectives. RESULTS: Phase 1: Parents were typically the first to express concern about their child's development, and most talked with their child's health care provider. Two categories of health care providers emerged: those who proactively asked about a child's development, used tools to facilitate conversations, and made referrals, and those who did not ask about development, told parents to "wait and see," and did not provide information about services and supports. Few parents knew about special education services before identification. Phase 2: Participants found the campaign materials appealing, but were unclear about how to act early and why acting early was important. CONCLUSIONS: Results affirmed LTSAE's evidence-based approach to educating parents about child development. Additional campaign considerations include providing more information about how to act early and why acting early is important and enhancing outreach to providers to help them communicate with concerned parents.

Screening for Speech and Language Delay in Children 5 Years Old and Younger: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: No recommendation exists for or against routine use of brief, formal screening instruments in primary care to detect speech and language delay in children through 5 years of age. This review aimed to update the evidence on screening and treating children for speech and language since the 2006 US Preventive Services Task Force systematic review. METHODS: Medline, the Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists. We included studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of screening tools and randomized controlled trials reporting benefits and harms of treatment of speech and language. Two independent reviewers extracted data, checked accuracy, and assigned quality ratings using predefined criteria. RESULTS: We found no evidence for the impact of screening on speech and language outcomes. In 23 studies evaluating the accuracy of screening tools, sensitivity ranged between 50% and 94%, and specificity ranged between 45% and 96%. Twelve treatment studies improved various outcomes in language, articulation, and stuttering; little evidence emerged for interventions improving other outcomes or for adverse effects of treatment. Risk factors associated with speech and language delay were male gender, family history, and low parental education. A limitation of this review is the lack of well-designed, well-conducted studies addressing whether screening for speech and language delay or disorders improves outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Several screening tools can accurately identify children for diagnostic evaluations and interventions, but evidence is inadequate regarding applicability in primary care settings. Some treatments for young children identified with speech and language delays and disorders may be effective.

From mission to measures: performance measure development for a Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program.

The Office of Adolescent Health (OAH) sought to create a comprehensive set of performance measures to capture the performance of the Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) program. This performance measurement system needed to provide measures that could be used internally (by both OAH and the TPP grantees) for management and program improvement as well as externally to communicate the program's progress to other interested stakeholders and Congress. This article describes the selected measures and outlines the considerations behind the TPP measurement development process. Issues faced, challenges encountered, and lessons learned have broad applicability for other federal agencies and, specifically, for TPP programs interested in assessing their own performance and progress.

Surgical treatments for otitis media with effusion: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The near universality of otitis media with effusion (OME) in children makes a comparative review of treatment modalities important. This study's objective was to compare the effectiveness of surgical strategies currently used for managing OME. METHODS: We identified 3 recent systematic reviews and searched 4 major electronic databases. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized trials, and cohort studies that compared myringotomy, adenoidectomy, tympanostomy tubes (tubes), and watchful waiting. Using established criteria, pairs of reviewers independently selected, extracted data, rated risk of bias, and graded strength of evidence of relevant studies. We incorporated meta-analyses from the earlier reviews and synthesized additional evidence qualitatively. RESULTS: We identified 41 unique studies through the earlier reviews and our independent searches. In comparison with watchful waiting or myringotomy (or both), tubes decreased time with OME and improved hearing; no specific tube type was superior. Adenoidectomy alone, as an adjunct to myringotomy, or combined with tubes, reduced OME and improved hearing in comparison with either myringotomy or watchful waiting. Tubes and watchful waiting did not differ in language, cognitive, or academic outcomes. Otorrhea and tympanosclerosis were more common in ears with tubes. Adenoidectomy increased the risk of postsurgical hemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS: Tubes and adenoidectomy reduce time with OME and improve hearing in the short-term. Both treatments have associated harms. Large, well-controlled studies could help resolve the risk-benefit ratio by measuring acute otitis media recurrence, functional outcomes, quality of life, and long-term outcomes. Research is needed to support treatment decisions in subpopulations, particularly in patients with comorbidities.

Health literacy interventions and outcomes: an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To update a 2004 systematic review of health care service use and health outcomes related to differences in health literacy level and interventions designed to improve these outcomes for individuals with low health literacy. Disparities in health outcomes and effectiveness of interventions among different sociodemographic groups were also examined. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE®, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library, PsychINFO, and the Educational Resources Information Center. For health literacy, we searched using a variety of terms, limited to English and studies published from 2003 to May 25, 2010. For numeracy, we searched from 1966 to May 25, 2010. REVIEW METHODS: We used standard Evidence-based Practice Center methods of dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, abstractions, quality ratings, and strength of evidence grading. We resolved disagreements by consensus. We evaluated whether newer literature was available for answering key questions, so we broadened our definition of health literacy to include numeracy and oral (spoken) health literacy. We excluded intervention studies that did not measure health literacy directly and updated our approach to evaluate individual study risk of bias and to grade strength of evidence. RESULTS: We included good- and fair-quality studies: 81 studies addressing health outcomes (reported in 95 articles including 86 measuring health literacy and 16 measuring numeracy, of which 7 measure both) and 42 studies (reported in 45 articles) addressing interventions. Differences in health literacy level were consistently associated with increased hospitalizations, greater emergency care use, lower use of mammography, lower receipt of influenza vaccine, poorer ability to demonstrate taking medications appropriately, poorer ability to interpret labels and health messages, and, among seniors, poorer overall health status and higher mortality. Health literacy level potentially mediates disparities between blacks and whites. The strength of evidence of numeracy studies was insufficient to low, limiting conclusions about the influence of numeracy on health care service use or health outcomes. Two studies suggested numeracy may mediate the effect of disparities on health outcomes. We found no evidence concerning oral health literacy and outcomes. Among intervention studies (27 randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 2 cluster RCTs, and 13 quasi-experimental designs), the strength of evidence for specific design features was low or insufficient. However, several specific features seemed to improve comprehension in one or a few studies. The strength of evidence was moderate for the effect of mixed interventions on health care service use; the effect of intensive self-management inventions on behavior; and the effect of disease-management interventions on disease prevalence/severity. The effects of other mixed interventions on other health outcomes, including knowledge, self-efficacy, adherence, and quality of life, and costs were mixed; thus, the strength of evidence was insufficient. CONCLUSIONS: The field of health literacy has advanced since the 2004 report. Future research priorities include justifying appropriate cutoffs for health literacy levels prior to conducting studies; developing tools that measure additional related skills, particularly oral (spoken) health literacy; and examining mediators and moderators of the effect of health literacy. Priorities in advancing the design features of interventions include testing novel approaches to increase motivation, techniques for delivering information orally or numerically, "work around" interventions such as patient advocates; determining the effective components of already-tested interventions; determining the cost-effectiveness of programs; and determining the effect of policy and practice interventions.

Early otitis media with effusion, hearing loss, and auditory processes at school age.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of conductive hearing loss (HL) secondary to otitis media with effusion (OME) in the first 3 years of life on physiologic, peripheral, and higher-order behavioral auditory measures examined at school age. METHODS: Peripheral hearing sensitivity for conventional and extended high-frequency audiometric ranges, physiologic (distortion product otoacoustic emissions, contralateral and ipsilateral acoustic middle ear muscle reflexes), auditory brain stem response (ABR), and higher-order auditory processing measures (masking level difference; Virtual Auditory Localization, Speech Intelligibility Gain; adaptive Pediatric Speech Intelligibility task) were examined at the end of the second grade of elementary school in two cohorts (North Carolina, N = 73, and New York, N = 59). All participants (mean age, 8 years) were followed prospectively in infancy and early childhood (7 to 39 months) for middle ear status and hearing loss (using pneumatic otoscopy/tympanometry and repeated conditioned behavioral audiometric response procedures). Multivariate analyses were conducted to address whether early OME and early conductive HL were related to physiologic, peripheral, and higher-order auditory processes. RESULTS: Early hearing loss and OME were significantly associated with peripheral hearing at school age; extended high-frequency thresholds accounted for the result. Similarly, hearing loss in early life and OME were significantly associated with the acoustic middle ear muscle reflex: The contralateral stimulation condition accounted for the association. Significant associations with both early OME and early HL were also found for the auditory brain stem response measure and were explained by the correlations between early hearing loss and the ABR Wave V latency but not other ABR indices. There were no reliable associations between either early OME or early HL on any other auditory processes evaluated at the end of second grade. CONCLUSIONS: Extended high-frequency hearing and brain stem auditory pathway measures in childhood were significantly associated with children's experiences with OME and hearing loss from 7 to 39 months of age. However, no significant associations were found for psychoacoustic measures of binaural processing or a behavioral adaptive speech-in-noise test at school age.

Otitis media, hearing loss, and language learning: controversies and current research.

This article reviews research on the possible linkage of otitis media with effusion (OME) to children's hearing and development, identifies gaps, and directions for research, and discusses implications for healthcare practices. About half of children with an episode of OME experience a mild hearing loss while about 5-10% of children have moderate hearing loss. Recent prospective and randomized clinical trials suggest none to very small negative associations of OME to children's later language development. Based on both retrospective and prospective longitudinal studies, associations between OME and perceiving speech in noise and tasks that require equal binaural hearing have been reported but have not been adequately studied with regard to functional outcomes. Thus, on average, for typically developing children, OME may not be a substantial risk factor for later speech and language development or academic achievement. However, these conclusions should be interpreted cautiously, since most of these studies used OME rather than hearing loss as the independent variable (although hearing loss rather than OME is hypothesized to affect language development) and many studies did not control for important confounding variables such as socioeconomic status (SES).