IMPORTANCE: Preterm birth is a leading cause of preventable neonatal morbidity and mortality. Preterm birth rates at the national level may mask important geographic variation in rates and trends at the county level. OBJECTIVE: To estimate age-standardized preterm birth rates by US county from 2007 to 2019. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This serial cross-sectional study used data from the National Center for Health Statistics composed of all live births in the US between 2007 and 2019. Data analyses were performed between March 22, 2022, and September 29, 2022. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Age-standardized preterm birth (<37 weeks' gestation) and secondarily early preterm birth (<34 weeks' gestation) rates by county and year calculated with a validated small area estimation model (hierarchical bayesian spatiotemporal model) and percent change in preterm birth rates using log-linear regression models. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2019, there were 51 044 482 live births in 2383 counties. In 2007, the national age-standardized preterm birth rate was 12.6 (95% CI, 12.6-12.7) per 100 live births. Preterm birth rates varied significantly among counties, with an absolute difference between the 90th and 10th percentile counties of 6.4 (95% CI, 6.2-6.7). The gap between the highest and lowest counties for preterm births was 20.7 per 100 live births in 2007. Several counties in the Southeast consistently had the highest preterm birth rates compared with counties in California and New England, which had the lowest preterm birth rates. Although there was no statistically significant change in preterm birth rates between 2007 and 2019 at the national level (percent change, -5.0%; 95% CI, -10.7% to 0.9%), increases occurred in 15.4% (95% CI, 14.1%-16.9%) of counties. The absolute and relative geographic inequalities were similar across all maternal age groups. Higher quartile of the Social Vulnerability Index was associated with higher preterm birth rates (quartile 4 vs quartile 1 risk ratio, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.31-1.36), which persisted across the study period. Similar patterns were observed for early preterm birth rates. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this serial cross-sectional study of county-level preterm and early preterm birth rates, substantial geographic disparities were observed, which were associated with place-based social disadvantage. Stability in aggregated rates of preterm birth at the national level masked increases in nearly 1 in 6 counties between 2007 and 2019.

Healthy People 2020 and the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable established colorectal cancer (CRC) screening targets of 70.5% and 80%, respectively. While evidence-based interventions (EBIs) have increased CRC screening, the ability to achieve these targets at the population level remains uncertain. We simulated the impact of multicomponent interventions in North Carolina over 5years to assess the potential for meeting national screening targets. Each intervention scenario is described as a core EBI with additional components indicated by the "+" symbol: patient navigation for screening colonoscopy (PN-for-Col+), mailed fecal immunochemical testing (MailedFIT+), MailedFIT+ targeted to Medicaid enrollees (MailedFIT+forMd), and provider assessment and feedback (PAF+). Each intervention was simulated with and without Medicaid expansion and at different levels of exposure (i.e., reach) for targeted populations. Outcomes included the percent up-to-date overall and by sociodemographic subgroups and number of CRC cases and deaths averted. Each multicomponent intervention was associated with increased CRC screening and averted both CRC cases and deaths; three had the potential to reach screening targets. PN-for-Col+achieved the 70.5% target with 97% reach after 1year, and the 80% target with 78% reach after 5years. MailedFIT+ achieved the 70.5% target with 74% reach after 1year and 5years. In the Medicaid population, assuming Medicaid expansion, MailedFIT+forMd reached the 70.5% target after 5years with 97% reach. This study clarifies the potential for states to reach national CRC screening targets using multicomponent EBIs, but decision-makers also should consider tradeoffs in cost, reach, and ability to reduce disparities when selecting interventions.

A robust evidence base supports the effectiveness of timely colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, follow-up of abnormal results, and referral to care in reducing CRC morbidity and mortality. However, only two-thirds of the US population is current with recommended screening, and rates are much lower for those who are vulnerable because of their race/ethnicity, insurance status, or rural location. Multiple, multilevel factors contribute to observed disparities, and these factors vary across different populations and contexts. As highlighted by the Cancer Moonshot Blue Ribbon Panel working groups focused on Prevention and Early Detection and Implementation Science inadequate CRC screening and follow-up represent an enormous missed opportunity in cancer prevention and control. To measurably reduce CRC morbidity and mortality, the evidence base must be strengthened to guide the identification of (1) multilevel factors that influence screening across different populations and contexts, (2) multilevel interventions and implementation strategies that will be most effective at targeting those factors, and (3) combinations of strategies that interact synergistically to improve outcomes. Systems thinking and simulation modeling (systems science) provide a set of approaches and techniques to aid decision makers in using the best available data and research evidence to guide implementation planning in the context of such complexity. This commentary summarizes current challenges in CRC prevention and control, discusses the status of the evidence base to guide the selection and implementation of multilevel CRC screening interventions, and describes a multi-institution project to showcase how systems science can be leveraged to optimize selection and implementation of CRC screening interventions in diverse populations and contexts.

PURPOSE: An isolated focus on 1 disease at a time is insufficient to generate the scientific evidence needed to improve the health of persons living with more than 1 chronic condition. This article explores how to bring context into research efforts to improve the health of persons living with multiple chronic conditions (MCC). METHODS: Forty-five experts, including persons with MCC, family and friend caregivers, researchers, policy makers, funders, and clinicians met to critically consider 4 aspects of incorporating context into research on MCC: key contextual factors, needed research, essential research methods for understanding important contextual factors, and necessary partnerships for catalyzing collaborative action in conducting and applying research. RESULTS: Key contextual factors involve complementary perspectives across multiple levels: public policy, community, health care systems, family, and person, as well as the cellular and molecular levels where most research currently is focused. Needed research involves moving from a disease focus toward a person-driven, goal-directed research agenda. Relevant research methods are participatory, flexible, multilevel, quantitative and qualitative, conducive to longitudinal dynamic measurement from diverse data sources, sufficiently detailed to consider what works for whom in which situation, and generative of ongoing communities of learning, living and practice. Important partnerships for collaborative action include cooperation among members of the research enterprise, health care providers, community-based support, persons with MCC and their family and friend caregivers, policy makers, and payers, including government, public health, philanthropic organizations, and the business community. CONCLUSION: Consistent attention to contextual factors is needed to enhance health research for persons with MCC. Rigorous, integrated, participatory, multimethod approaches to generate new knowledge and diverse partnerships can be used to increase the relevance of research to make health care more sustainable, safe, equitable and effective, to reduce suffering, and to improve quality of life.

Research and development of prophylactic vaccines carries a high risk of failure. In the past, industry experts have asserted that vaccines are riskier to produce than other pharmaceuticals. This assertion has not been critically examined. We assessed outcomes in pharmaceutical research and development from 1995 to 2011, using a global pharmaceutical database to identify prophylactic vaccines versus other pharmaceuticals in preclinical, Phase I, Phase II, or Phase III stages of development. Over 16 years of follow-up for 4367 products (132 prophylactic vaccines; 4325 other pharmaceuticals), we determined the failure-to-success ratios for prophylactic vaccines versus all other products. The overall ratio of failures to successes for prophylactic vaccines for the 1995 cohort over 16 years of follow-up was 8.3 (116/14) versus 7.7 (3650/475) for other pharmaceuticals. The probability of advancing through the development pipeline at each point was not significantly different for prophylactic vaccines than for other pharmaceuticals. Phase length was significantly longer for prophylactic vaccines than other pharmaceuticals for preclinical development (3.70 years vs 2.80 years; p<.0001), but was equivalent for all 3 human clinical trial phases between the two groups. We conclude that failure rates, phase transition probabilities, and most phase lengths for prophylactic vaccines are not significantly different from those of other pharmaceutical products, which may partially explain rapidly growing interest in prophylactic vaccines among major pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Successful launches of recently licensed vaccines contrast with pharmaceutical industry concerns about unfavorable market conditions, making the status and future of vaccine development uncertain. We assessed trends in private-sector vaccine research and development for the period 1995-2008, using a global pharmaceutical database to identify prophylactic vaccines in preclinical, Phase I, Phase II, or Phase III stages of development. We counted companies that research and/or manufacture vaccines ("vaccine originators") and their vaccine products in each year. The global number of vaccine originators doubled (to 136), as did the number of prophylactic vaccine products in development (to 354); the majority of this growth was in preclinical and early phase clinical research. Because rapid growth in earlier research phases has not yet led to growth in Phase III, it is not yet clear whether recent industry expansion will translate to an increase in the number of available vaccines in the near future.