Skip Navigation U.S. Department of Health and Human Services www.hhs.gov
Agency for Healthcare Research Quality www.ahrq.gov
AHRQ Home | Questions? | Contact Us | Site Map | What's New | Browse | Información en español | E-mail UpdatesE-mail Updates
www.ahrq.gov

Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, 2008

Musculoskeletal Conditions

Primary Care Interventions to Prevent Low Back Pain in Adults

Summary of Recommendation

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against the routine use of interventions to prevent low back pain in adults in primary care settings.
Grade: I Statement.

This USPSTF recommendation was first published by: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. February 2004.
To read the recommendation, go to: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/lowback/lowbackrs.htm.

Clinical Considerations
  • Although exercise has not been shown to prevent low back pain, regular physical activity has other proven health benefits, including prevention of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and osteoporosis.
  • Neither lumbar supports nor back belts appear to be effective in reducing the incidence of low back pain.
  • Worksite interventions, including educational interventions, have some short-term benefit in reducing the incidence of low back pain. However, their applicability to the primary care setting is unknown.
  • Back schools may prevent further back injury for individuals with recurrent or chronic low back pain, but their long-term effectiveness has not been well studied.

Return to Contents

Screening for Osteoporosis in Postmenopausal Women

Summary of Recommendations

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends that women aged 65 and older be screened routinely for osteoporosis. The USPSTF recommends that routine screening begin at age 60 for women at increased risk for osteoporotic fractures (see Clinical Considerations for discussion of women at increased risk).
Grade: B Recommendation.

The USPSTF makes no recommendation for or against routine osteoporosis screening in postmenopausal women who are younger than 60 or in women aged 60-64 who are not at increased risk for osteoporotic fractures.
Grade: C Recommendation.

This USPSTF recommendation was first published in:  Ann Intern Med 2002;137:526-8.
To read the recommendation, go to: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/osteoporosis/osteorr.htm.

Clinical Considerations
  • Modeling analysis suggests that the absolute benefits of screening for osteoporosis among women aged 60-64 who are at increased risk for osteoporosis and fracture are comparable to those of routine screening in older women. The exact risk factors that should trigger screening in this age group are difficult to specify based on evidence. Lower body weight (weight <70 kg ) is the single best predictor of low bone mineral density.67,68 Low weight and no current use of estrogen therapy are incorporated with age into the 3-item Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI).67-68 There is less evidence to support the use of other individual risk factors (for example, smoking, weight loss, family history, decreased physical activity, alcohol or caffeine use, or low calcium and vitamin D intake) as a basis for identifying high-risk women younger than 65. At any given age, African-American women on average have higher bone mineral density (BMD) than white women and are thus less likely to benefit from screening.
  • Among different bone measurement tests performed at various anatomical sites, bone density measured at the femoral neck by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the best predictor of hip fracture and is comparable to forearm measurements for predicting fractures at other sites. Other technologies for measuring peripheral sites include quantitative ultrasonography (QUS), radiographic absorptiometry, single energy x-ray absorptiometry, peripheral dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, and peripheral quantitative computed tomography. Recent data suggest that peripheral bone density testing in the primary care setting can also identify postmenopausal women who have a higher risk for fracture over the short term (1 year). Further research is needed to determine the accuracy of peripheral bone density testing in comparison with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). The likelihood of being diagnosed with osteoporosis varies greatly depending on the site and type of bone measurement test, the number of sites tested, the brand of densitometer used, and the relevance of the reference range.
  • Estimates of the benefits of detecting and treating osteoporosis are based largely on studies of bisphosphonates. Some women, however, may prefer other treatment options (for example, hormone replacement therapy, selective estrogen receptor modulators, or calcitonin) based on personal preferences or risk factors. Clinicians should review with patients the relative benefits and harms of available treatment options, and uncertainties about their efficacy and safety, to facilitate an informed choice.
  • No studies have evaluated the optimal intervals for repeated screening. Because of limitations in the precision of testing, a minimum of 2 years may be needed to reliably measure a change in bone mineral density; however, longer intervals may be adequate for repeated screening to identify new cases of osteoporosis. Yield of repeated screening will be higher in older women, those with lower BMD at baseline, and those with other risk factors for fracture.
  • There are no data to determine the appropriate age to stop screening and few data on osteoporosis treatment in women older than 85. Patients who receive a diagnosis of osteoporosis fall outside the context of screening but may require additional testing for diagnostic purposes or to monitor response to treatment.

Return to Contents

Obstetric and Gynecologic Conditions

Screening for Bacterial Vaginosis in Pregnancy

Summary of Recommendations

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends against screening for bacterial vaginosis in asymptomatic pregnant women at low risk for preterm delivery.
Grade: D Recommendation.

The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for bacterial vaginosis in asymptomatic pregnant women at high risk for preterm delivery.
Grade: I Statement.

This USPSTF recommendation was first published in: Ann Intern Med 2008 148(3):214-19.
To read the recommendation, go to: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsbvag.htm.

Clinical Considerations
  • Several factors have been associated with increased risk for preterm delivery. All of these associations are small to moderate. These factors include, but are not limited to, African-American race or ethnicity, body mass index less than 20 kg/m2 , previous preterm delivery, vaginal bleeding, a short cervix (<2.5 cm), pelvic infection, and bacterial vaginosis. These factors can act in isolation or in combination. Furthermore, bacterial vaginosis in pregnancy is more common among African-American women, women of low socioeconomic status, and those who have previously delivered low-birthweight infants. For the purpose of the current recommendation, women were considered to be at low risk if they had no previous preterm delivery or other risk factors for preterm delivery (often these were nulliparous women). Women were considered to be at high risk if they had a previous preterm delivery.
  • Bacterial vaginosis is diagnosed by using the Amsel clinical criteria or Gram stain. With the Amsel criteria, the clinical diagnosis is made by fulfilling 3 of 4 criteria: vaginal pH greater than 4.7, the presence of clue cells on wet mount, thin homogenous discharge, and amine “fishy odor” when potassium hydroxide is added to the discharge.
  • This recommendation statement addresses screening for bacterial vaginosis in asymptomatic women. Treatment of symptomatic cases should be based on the clinical situation.
  • Oral metronidazole and oral clindamycin, as well as vaginal metronidazole gel or clindamycin cream, are used to treat bacterial vaginosis. The optimal treatment regimen for pregnant women with bacterial vaginosis is unclear. Refer to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site for current treatment recommendations (http://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment/2006/vaginal-discharge.htm#vagdis2).

Return to Contents

Behavioral Interventions to Promote Breastfeeding

Summary of Recommendations

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends structured breastfeeding education and behavioral counseling programs to promote breastfeeding.
Grade: B Recommendation.

The USPSTF found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the following interventions to promote breastfeeding: brief education and counseling by primary care providers; peer counseling used alone and initiated in the clinical setting; and written materials, used alone or in combination with other interventions.
Grade: I Statement.

This USPSTF recommendation statement was first published in:  Am J Fam Med 2003;1(2):79-80.
To read the recommendation, go to: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/brstfeed/brfeedrr.htm.

Clinical Considerations
  • Effective breastfeeding education and behavioral counseling programs use individual or group sessions led by specially trained nurses or lactation specialists, usually lasting 30 to 90 minutes. Sessions generally begin during the prenatal period and cover the benefits of breastfeeding for infant and mother, basic physiology, equipment, technical training in positioning and latch-on techniques, and behavioral training in skills required to overcome common situational barriers to breastfeeding and to garner needed social support.
  • Hospital practices that may help support breastfeeding include early maternal contact with the newborn, rooming-in, and avoidance of formula supplementation for breastfeeding infants.
  • Commercial discharge packs provided by hospitals that include samples of infant formula and/or bottles and nipples are associated with reducing the rates of exclusive breastfeeding.
  • Mothers who wish to continue breastfeeding after returning to work, especially those working fulltime, may need to use an electric or mechanical pump to maintain a sufficient breast milk supply.
  • Few contraindications to breastfeeding exist. In developed countries, infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the mother is considered a contraindication to breastfeeding, as is the presence of current alcohol and drug use/dependence. Some medications (prescription and non-prescription) are contraindicated or advised for use "with caution" and appropriate clinical monitoring among lactating women.69 Clinicians should consult appropriate references for information on specific medications, including herbal remedies.

Return to Contents

Screening for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus

NOTE: The USPSTF revised its recommendation on this topic during publication of The Guide to Clinical Preventive Services 2008. For the most recent recommendation, please visit our Web site at http://www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov or the USPSTF’s Electronic Preventive Services Selector (ePSS) at http://epss.ahrq.gov. You can search the ePSS for recommendations by patient age, sex, and pregnancy status, and you can download the recommendations as well as receive automatic updates to your PDA.

This USPSTF recommendation was first published in:  Ann Intern Med 2008;148:759-765.
To read the recommendation, go to: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsgdm.htm.

Return to Contents

Screening for Rh (D) Incompatibility

Summary of Recommendations

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) strongly recommends Rh (D) blood typing and antibody testing for all pregnant women during their first visit for pregnancy-related care.
Grade: A Recommendation.

The USPSTF recommends repeated Rh (D) antibody testing for all unsensitized Rh (D)-negative women at 24-28 weeks’ gestation, unless the biological father is known to be Rh (D)-negative.
Grade: B Recommendation.

This USPSTF recommendation was first published by: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. February 2004.
To read the recommendation, go to: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/rh/rhrs.htm.

Clinical Considerations
  • Administration of a full (300µg) dose of Rh (D) immunoglobulin is recommended for all unsensitized Rh (D)-negative women after repeated antibody testing at 24-28 weeks’ gestation.
  • If an Rh (D)-positive or weakly Rh (D)-positive (e.g., Du-positive) infant is delivered, a dose of Rh (D) immunoglobulin should be repeated postpartum, preferably within 72 hours after delivery. Administering Rh (D) immunoglobulin at other intervals after delivery has not been studied.
  • Unless the biological father is known to be Rh (D)-negative, a full dose of Rh (D) immunoglobulin is recommended for all unsensitized Rh (D)-negative women after amniocentesis and after induced or spontaneous abortion; however, if the pregnancy is less than 13 weeks, a 50µg dose is sufficient.
  • The benefit of routine administration of Rh (D) immunoglobulin after other obstetric procedures or complications such as chorionic villus sampling, ectopic pregnancy termination, cordocentesis, fetal surgery or manipulation (including external version), antepartum placental hemorrhage, abdominal trauma, antepartum fetal death, or stillbirth is uncertain due to inadequate evidence.

Return to Contents

Vision Disorders

Screening for Glaucoma

Summary of Recommendation

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening adults for glaucoma.
Grade: I Statement.

This USPSTF recommendation was first published by: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Rockville, MD, March 2005.
To read the recommendation, go to: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsglau.htm..

Clinical Considerations
  • Primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) is a chronic condition characterized by a loss of retinal ganglion cell axons. It is manifested initially by peripheral visual field loss; in an uncertain number of cases, it progresses to impairment in important vision-related function and even to irreversible blindness.
  • The diagnosis of POAG is not made on the basis of a single test but on the finding of characteristic degenerative changes in the optic disc and defects in visual fields. Although increased intraocular pressure (IOP) has previously been considered an important part in the definition of this condition, it is now known that many people with POAG do not have increased IOP; hence, there is little value of using tonometry to screen for POAG.
  • Increased IOP, family history, older age, and being of African American descent place an individual at increased risk for glaucoma. Older African Americans have a higher prevalence of glaucoma and perhaps a more rapid disease progression, and if it is shown that screening for glaucoma reduces the development of visual impairment, African Americans would likely have greater absolute benefit than whites. People with a limited life expectancy would likely have little to gain from glaucoma screening.
  • The natural history of glaucoma is heterogeneous and not well defined. There is a subgroup of people with POAG in whom there is either no disease progression, or the progression is so slow that the condition would never have an important effect on their vision. The size of this subgroup is uncertain and may depend on the ethnicity and age of the population. Others experience more rapidly progressing disease, leading to reduced vision-related function within 10 years. Whether an individual's glaucoma will progress cannot be predicted with precision, but those with higher levels of IOP and worse visual fields at baseline, and those who are older, tend to be at greater risk for the more rapid progression of glaucoma. Whether the rate of progression of visual field defects remains uniform throughout the course of glaucoma is unknown.
  • Measurement of visual fields can be difficult. The reliability of a single visual field measurement may be low; several consistent visual field measurements are needed to establish the presence of defects. Dilated opthalmoscopy or slit lamp exam are used by specialists to examine changes in the optic disc; however, even experts vary in their ability to detect glaucomatous optic disc progression. Additionally, there is no agreed-upon single standard to define and measure progression of visual field defects.
  • The primary treatments for POAG reduce IOP; these include medications, laser therapy, or surgery. These treatments effectively reduce the development and progression of small, visual field defects. The magnitude of their effectiveness, however, in reducing impairment in vision-related function is uncertain. Harms caused by these interventions include formation of cataracts, harms resulting from cataract surgery, and harms of topical medication.

Return to Contents

References:

1. Gail MH, Costantino JH, Bryant J, et al. Weighing the risks and benefits of tamoxifen treatment for preventing breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1829-46.

2. Martin-Hirsch P, Lilford R, Jarvis G, Kitchener HC. Efficacy of cervical-smear collection devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis [published erratum appears in Lancet 2000 Jan 29;355(9201):414]. Lancet 1999;354(9192):1763-70.

3. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, von Eschenbach AC, et al. American Cancer Society Guideline for the Early Detection of Cervical Neoplasia and Cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2002;52(1):8-22.

4. Hildesheim A, Hadjimichael O, Schwartz PE, et al. Risk factors for rapid-onset cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180(3 Pt 1):571-7.

5. Janerich DT, Hadjimichael O, Schwartz PE, et al. The screening histories of women with invasive cervical cancer, Connecticut. Am J Public Health 1995;85(6):791-4.

6. Hartman KE, Hall SA, Nanda K, Boggess JF, Zolnoun D. Screening for Cervical Cancer. Systematic Evidence Review. No. 25. (Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under contract No. 290-97-0011). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. January 2002. Available on the AHRQ Web site at: www.ahrq.gov/clinic/serfiles.htm.

7. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Guidelines for Women's Health Care, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: ACOG;2002: 121-34, 140-1.

8. Mitchell HS, Giles GG. Cancer diagnosis after a report of negative cervical cytology. Med J Aust 1996;164(5):270-3.

9. Sigurdsson K. Trends in cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia in Iceland through 1995: evaluation of targeted age groups and screening intervals. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999;78(6):486-92.

10. Winawer SJ, Fletcher RH, Miller L, Godlee F, Stolar MH, Mulrow CD, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: clinical guidelines and rationale. Gastroenterology 1997;112:594-642.

11. Lowenfels AB, Maisonneuve P, DiMagno EP, et al. Hereditary pancreatitis and the risk of pancreatic cancer. International Hereditary Pancreatitis Study Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:442-6.

12. Harris RP, Lohr KN. Screening for prostate cancer: an update of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137:917-29.

13. Harris RP, Lohr KN, Beck R, Fink K, Godley P, Bunton A. Screening for Prostate Cancer. Systematic Evidence Review No. 16 (Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-97-0011). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. December 2001. (Available on the AHRQ Web site at: www.ahrq.gov/clinic/serfiles.htm).

14. U.S. Pharmacopeia Dietary Supplement Verification Program. Available at: www.usp-dsvp.org. Accessed April 30, 2002.

15. Screening for Neural Tube Defects. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guide To Clinical Preventive Services, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; 1996: 467-83. Available at: www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsneur.htm. Accessed May 8, 2003.

16. Wilson PW, D'Agostino RB, Levy D, Belanger AM, Sibershatz H, Kannel WB. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation 1998;97(18):1837-47.

17. Jackson R. Updated New Zealand cardiovascular disease risk-benefit prediction guide. BMJ 2000;320:709-10. Also available at: www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7236/709.

18. Summary of the second report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on the Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel II). JAMA 1993;269:3015-23.

19. Harding GKM, Zhanel GG, Nicolle LE, Cheang M. Antimicrobial treatment in diabetic women with asymptomatic bacteriuria. N Engl J Med 2002;347(20):1576-83.

20. Nelson HD, Nygren P, Qazi Y. Screening for Family and Intimate Partner Violence. Systematic Evidence Review No. 28. (Prepared by the Oregon Health & Science Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-97-0018). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. February 2004. (Available on the AHRQ Web site at: www.ahrq.gov/clinic/serfiles.htm).

21. Reid MC, Fiellin DA, O'Connor PG. Hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption in primary care. Arch Intern Med 1999;159(15):1681-9.

22. WHO. The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1992.

23. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1994

24. Tenth special report to the U.S. Congress on alcohol and health from the Secretary of Health and Human Services. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). NIH Publication No. 00-1583; June 2000.

25. The Physician's Guide to Helping Patients with Alcohol Problems. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). NIH Pub. No. 95-3769. Bethesda, MD; 1995.

26. Mukamal KJ, Conigrave KM, Mittleman MA, et al. Roles of drinking pattern and type of alcohol consumed in coronary heart disease in men. N Engl J Med 2003;348(2):109-18.

27. Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, Grant M. Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative Project on Early Detection of Persons with Harmful Alcohol Consumption-II. Addiction 1993;88(6):791-804.

28. Fiellin DA, Reid MC, O'Connor PG. Screening for alcohol problems in primary care: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 2000;160(13):1977-89.

29. Ewing JA. Detecting Alcoholism: The CAGE questionnaire. JAMA 1984;252(14):1905-7.

30. Chang G. Alcohol-screening instruments for pregnant women. Alcohol Res Health 2001;25(3):204-9.

31. Babor TF, Higgins-Biddle JC. Brief Intervention for Hazardous and Harmful Drinking. A Manual for Use in Primary Care. World Health Organization; 2001.

32. Training Physicians in Techniques for Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention. National Institutes of Health. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). Bethesda, MD; 1997.

33. Whaley SE, O'Conner MJ. Increasing the report of alcohol use among low-income pregnant women. American Journal of Health Promot 2003;17(6):369-72.

34. Fleming MF. Identification of at-Risk Drinking and Intervention with Women of Childbearing Age: Guide for Primary Care Providers. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). NIH. Bethesda, Maryland; 2000.

35. Whitlock EP, Orleans CT, Pender N, Allan J. Evaluating primary care behavioral counseling interventions. An evidence-based approach. Am J Prev Med 2002;22(4):267-84.

36. Miller WR, Rollnick S, Con K. Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People for Change, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2002.

37. Anderson JE, Jorenby DE, Scott WJ, Fiore MC. Treating tobacco use and dependence: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for tobacco cessation. Chest 2002;121(3):932-41.

38. Prochaska JO, Velicer WF. The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot 1997;12(1):38-48.

39. Knight JR, Sherritt L, Harris SK, Gates EC, Chang G. Validity of brief alcohol screening tests among adolescents: A comparison of the AUDIT, POSIT, CAGE, and CRAFFT. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2003;27(1):67-73

40. Williams JW, Hitchcock Noel P, Cordes JA, Ramirez G, Pignone M. Rational clinical examination. Is this patient clinically depressed? JAMA 2002;287:1160-7.

41. Whooley MA, Avins AL, Miranda J, Browner WS. Casefinding instruments for depression: Two questions are as good as many. J Gen Intern Med 1997;12:439-45.

42. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV, 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1994.

43. Miller W, Rolnick S. Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People to Change Addictive Behavior. New York: Guilford, 1991.

44. Anderson JE, Jorenby DE, Scott WJ, Fiore MC. Treating tobacco use and dependence: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for tobacco cessation. Chest 2002;121(3):932-41.

45. Prochaska JO, Velicer WF. The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot 1997;12(1):38-48.

46. CDC. Strategies for reducing exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, tobacco-use cessation, and reducing initiation in communities and health-care systems. A report on recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. MMWR 2000:49(No. RR-12);1-11.

47. Fiore MC, Bailey WC, Cohen SJ, et al. Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence. Rockville MD: Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 2000.

48. Calfas KJ, Zabinski MF, Rupp J. Practical nutrition assessment in primary care settings: a review. Am J Prev Med 2000;18(4):289-99.

49. Rockett HR, Colditz GA. Assessing diets of children and adolescents. Am J Clin Nutr 1997;65(4):1116-22.

50. Beresford SA, Farmer EM, Feingold L, Graves KL, Sumner SK, Baker RM. Evaluation of a self-help dietary intervention in a primary care setting. Am J Public Health 1992;82(1):79-84.

51. Coates RJ, Bowen DJ, Kristal AR, et al. The Women's Health Trial Feasibility Study in Minority Populations: changes in dietary intakes. Am J Epidemiol 1999;149(12):1104-12.

52. Kristal AR, Curry SJ, Shattuck AL, Feng Z, Li S. A randomized trial of a tailored, self-help dietary intervention: the Puget Sound Eating Patterns study. Prev Med2000;31(4):380-9.

53. Little P, Barnett J, Margetts B, et al. The validity of dietary assessment in general practice. J Epidemiol Commun Health 1999;53(3):165-72.

54. Whitlock EP, Orleans CT, Pender N, Allan J. Evaluating primary care behavioral counseling interventions: an evidence-based approach. Am J Prev Med 2002;22(4):267-84.

55. Maskarinec G, Chan CL, Meng L, Franke AA, Cooney RV. Exploring the feasibility and effects of a high-fruit and-vegetable diet in healthy women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999;8(10):919-24.

56. Beresford SA, Curry SJ, Kristal AR, Lazovich D, Feng Z, Wagner EH. A dietary intervention in primary care practice: the Eating Patterns Study. Am J Public Health 1997;87(4):610-6.

57. Ockene IS, Hebert JR, Ockene JK, et al. Effect of physician-delivered nutrition counseling training and an office-support program on saturated fat intake, weight, and serum lipid measurements in a hyperlipidemic population: Worcester Area Trial for Counseling in Hyperlipidemia (WATCH). Arch Int Med 1999;159(7):725-31.

58. Ockene IS, Hebert JR, Ockene JK, Merriam PA, Hurley TG, Saperia GM. Effect of training and a structured office practice on physician-delivered nutrition counseling: the Worcester-Area Trial for Counseling in Hyperlipidemia (WATCH). Am J Prev Med 1996;12(4):252-8.

59. Obarzanek E, Hunsberger SA, Van Horn L, et al. Safety of a fat-reduced diet: the Dietary Intervention Study in Children (DISC). Pediatrics 1997;100(1):51-9.

60. Obarzanek E, Kimm SY, Barton BA, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of a cholesterol-lowering diet in children with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol: seven-year results of the Dietary Intervention Study in Children (DISC). Pediatrics 2001;107(2):256-64.

61. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women: recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 137(6):526-8.

62. Sheridan SL, Harris RP, Woolf SH, for the Shared Decisionmaking Workgroup, Third U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Shared decision-making about screening and chemoprevention: a suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Am J Prev Med 2004;26(1):56-66.

63. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010, conference edition. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2000. Available at: www.health.gov/healthypeople/Document/HTML/Volume2/22Physical.htm. Accessed May 30, 2002.

64. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; 1996. Available at: www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/sgr/pdf/sgrfull.pdf [PDF Help]. Accessed May 30, 2002.

65. Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Recommendations to increase physical activity in communities. Am J Prev Med 2002;22(4S):67-72. Available at: www.thecommunityguide.org/. Accessed June 7, 2002.

66. The Writing Group for the Activity Counseling Trial Research Group. Effects of physical activity counseling in primary care: The activity counseling trial: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001;286:677-87.

67. Cadarette SM, Jaglal SB, Kreiger N, et al. Development and validation of the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument to facilitate selection of women for bone densitometry. Can Med Assoc J 2000;162:1289-94.

68. Cadarette SM, Jaglal SB, Murray T, et al. Evaluation of decision rules for referring women for bone densitometry by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. JAMA 2001;286(1):57-63.

69. American Academy of Pediatrics and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Guidelines for Perinatal Care, 5th ed. October 2002:220-9.

70. WHO Consultation: Definition, diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus and its complications: report of a WHO Consultation. Part 1: diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Geneva, WHO/NCD/NCS/99.2, World Health Org., 1999.

71. American Diabetes Association. Gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2002;25(Suppl 1):S94-6.

72. Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Hypertension 2003;42:1206-52.

73. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2006. MMWR Recomm Rep 2006;55:1-94.

Return to Contents
Proceed to Next Section

 
AHRQ Advancing Excellence in Health Care