Introduction: In 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain (2016 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline) to improve opioid prescribing while minimizing associated risks. This analysis sought to understand guideline-concordant knowledge and self-reported practices among primary care physicians. Methods: Data from Spring DocStyles 2020, a cross-sectional, web-based survey of practicing U.S. physicians, were analyzed in 2022 and 2023. Demographic, knowledge, and practice characteristics of primary care physicians overall (N=1,007) and among specific subsets—(1) primary care physicians who provided care for patients with chronic pain (n=600), (2) primary care physicians who did not provide care for patients with chronic pain (n=337), and (3) primary care physicians who reported not obtaining or seeking a buprenorphine waiver (n=624)—were examined. Results: A majority of physicians (72.6%) were unable to select a series of options consistent with diagnostic criteria for opioid use disorder; of those physicians, almost half (47.9%) reported treating at least 1 patient with medications for opioid use disorder. A minority of physicians (17.5%) reported having a buprenorphine prescribing waiver. Among physicians who prescribed opioids for chronic pain (88.5%), 54.4% concurrently prescribed benzodiazepines. About one third (33.5%) reported not taking patients with chronic pain. Conclusions: There were critical practice gaps among primary care physicians related to 2016 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline topics. Increasing knowledge of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's opioid prescribing recommendations can benefit physician practice, patient outcomes, and public health strategies in addressing the opioid overdose crisis and implementing safer and more effective pain care. © 2024

Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug in the U.S. In 2018, 16% of Americans aged 12 years or older reported using cannabis.1 Vaping, or e-cigarette product use, is an emerging mode of cannabis use because of perceptions that it is less harmful than smoking and with better taste and a stronger “high.”2 Along with a range of health effects associated with cannabis use, chemicals, such as vitamin E acetate, present in some tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing vaping products can be harmful, as demonstrated by the recent national outbreak of lung injury.3 Data are limited on vaping as a mode of use of cannabis as traditional public health data systems typically do not capture these behaviors.4

Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit substance under federal law in the United States (1); however, many states have legalized medical and adult nonmedical use. Evidence regarding the safety and health effects of cannabis use during pregnancy is largely inconclusive (2). Potential adverse health effects to exposed infants (e.g., lower birthweight) have been documented (2). To provide population-based estimates of use surrounding pregnancy, identify reasons for and mode of use, and understand characteristics of women who continue versus cease marijuana use during pregnancy, CDC analyzed data from eight states participating in the 2017 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) marijuana supplement. Overall, 9.8% of women self-reported marijuana use before pregnancy, 4.2% during pregnancy, and 5.5% after pregnancy. The most common reasons for use during pregnancy were to relieve stress or anxiety, nausea or vomiting, and pain. Smoking was the most common mode of use. In multivariable models that included age, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, insurance status, parity, trimester of entry into prenatal care, and cigarette and e-cigarette use during pregnancy, women who continued versus ceased marijuana use during pregnancy were more likely to be non-Hispanic white or other race/ethnicity than non-Hispanic black, be unmarried, have ≤12 years of education, and use cigarettes during pregnancy. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommend refraining from marijuana use during pregnancy and lactation (3,4). Given the increasing number of states legalizing medical and adult nonmedical marijuana use, surveillance of perinatal marijuana use can inform clinical guidance, provider and patient education, and public health programs to support evidence-based approaches to addressing substance use.

The United States is in the midst of an opioid overdose epidemic, with a significant portion of the burden associated with prescription opioids. In response, the CDC released a Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain, which promotes access to treatment for opioid use disorder. Decades of research have linked childhood adversity to negative health and risk behavior outcomes, including substance misuse. Our present study builds upon this work to examine the relationship between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and prescription opioid misuse. We compiled data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System implemented by Montana and Florida in 2010 and 2011, respectively. Logistic regressions (run in 2017) tested the associations between ACEs and subsequent prescription pain medicine/opioid misuse outcomes in adulthood. ACEs were prevalent, with 62.7% of respondents in Montana and 50% in Florida reporting at least one ACE. The presence of ACEs was positively associated with prescription opioid misuse across both samples. Respondents reporting three or more ACEs had increased odds of taking opioids more than prescribed, without a prescription, and for the feeling they cause. Our results support a strong link between ACEs and prescription opioid misuse. Opportunities to prevent opioid misuse start with assuring safe, stable, nurturing relationships and environments in childhood and across the lifespan to prevent ACEs from occurring, and intervening appropriately when they do occur. Substance use prevention programs for adolescents, appropriate pain management and opioid prescribing protocols, and treatments for opioid use disorder can address ACEs by enhancing treatment safety and effectiveness and can reduce the intergenerational continuity of early adversity.

BACKGROUND: Practitioners and policy makers need evidence to facilitate the selection of effective prevention interventions that can address the ongoing opioid overdose epidemic in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of publications reporting on rigorous evaluations of systems-level interventions to address provider and patient/public behavior and prevent prescription and illicit opioid overdose. A total of 251 studies were reviewed. Interventions studied included 1) state legislation and regulation, 2) prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), 3) insurance strategies, 4) clinical guideline implementation, 5) provider education, 6) health system interventions, 7) naloxone education and distribution, 8) safe storage and disposal, 9) public education, 10) community coalitions, and 11) interventions employing public safety and public health collaborations. RESULTS: The quality of evidence supporting selected interventions was low to moderate. Interventions with the strongest evidence include PDMP and pain clinic legislation, insurance strategies, motivational interviewing in clinical settings, feedback to providers on opioid prescribing behavior, intensive school and family-based programs, and patient education in the clinical setting. CONCLUSIONS: Although evidence is growing, further high-quality research is needed. Investigators should aim to identify strategies that can prevent overdose, as well as influence public, patient, and provider behavior. Identifying which strategies are most effective at addressing prescription compared to illicit opioid misuse and overdose could be fruitful, as well as investigating synergistic effects and unintended consequences.

BACKGROUND: The CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain recommends considering prescribing naloxone when factors that increase risk for overdose are present (e.g., history of overdose or substance use disorder, opioid dosages >/=50 morphine milligram equivalents per day [high-dose], and concurrent use of benzodiazepines). In light of the high numbers of drug overdose deaths involving opioids, 36% of which in 2017 involved prescription opioids, improving access to naloxone is a public health priority. CDC examined trends and characteristics of naloxone dispensing from retail pharmacies at the national and county levels in the United States. METHODS: CDC analyzed 2012-2018 retail pharmacy data from IQVIA, a health care, data science, and technology company, to assess U.S. naloxone dispensing by U.S. Census region, urban/rural status, prescriber specialty, and recipient characteristics, including age group, sex, out-of-pocket costs, and method of payment. Factors associated with naloxone dispensing at the county level also were examined. RESULTS: The number of naloxone prescriptions dispensed from retail pharmacies increased substantially from 2012 to 2018, including a 106% increase from 2017 to 2018 alone. Nationally, in 2018, one naloxone prescription was dispensed for every 69 high-dose opioid prescriptions. Substantial regional variation in naloxone dispensing was found, including a twenty-fivefold variation across counties, with lowest rates in the most rural counties. A wide variation was also noted by prescriber specialty. Compared with naloxone prescriptions paid for with Medicaid and commercial insurance, a larger percentage of prescriptions paid for with Medicare required out-of-pocket costs. CONCLUSION: Despite substantial increases in naloxone dispensing, the rate of naloxone prescriptions dispensed per high-dose opioid prescription remains low, and overall naloxone dispensing varies substantially across the country. Naloxone distribution is an important component of the public health response to the opioid overdose epidemic. Health care providers can prescribe or dispense naloxone when overdose risk factors are present and counsel patients on how to use it. Efforts to improve naloxone access and distribution work most effectively with efforts to improve opioid prescribing, implement other harm-reduction strategies, promote linkage to medications for opioid use disorder treatment, and enhance public health and public safety partnerships.

Pediatric traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a growing health concern, with over half a million TBI-related emergency department (ED) visits annually. However, this is likely an underestimate of the true incidence, with many children presenting to their pediatrician. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a guideline on the diagnosis and management of pediatric mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). We outline key points and a decision checklist for pediatricians based on this evidence-based guideline.

Importance: Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), or concussion, in children is a rapidly growing public health concern because epidemiologic data indicate a marked increase in the number of emergency department visits for mTBI over the past decade. However, no evidence-based clinical guidelines have been developed to date for diagnosing and managing pediatric mTBI in the United States. Objective: To provide a guideline based on a previous systematic review of the literature to obtain and assess evidence toward developing clinical recommendations for health care professionals related to the diagnosis, prognosis, and management/treatment of pediatric mTBI. Evidence Review: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Board of Scientific Counselors, a federal advisory committee, established the Pediatric Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Guideline Workgroup. The workgroup drafted recommendations based on the evidence that was obtained and assessed within the systematic review, as well as related evidence, scientific principles, and expert inference. This information includes selected studies published since the evidence review was conducted that were deemed by the workgroup to be relevant to the recommendations. The dates of the initial literature search were January 1, 1990, to November 30, 2012, and the dates of the updated literature search were December 1, 2012, to July 31, 2015. Findings: The CDC guideline includes 19 sets of recommendations on the diagnosis, prognosis, and management/treatment of pediatric mTBI that were assigned a level of obligation (ie, must, should, or may) based on confidence in the evidence. Recommendations address imaging, symptom scales, cognitive testing, and standardized assessment for diagnosis; history and risk factor assessment, monitoring, and counseling for prognosis; and patient/family education, rest, support, return to school, and symptom management for treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: This guideline identifies the best practices for mTBI based on the current evidence; updates should be made as the body of evidence grows. In addition to the development of the guideline, CDC has created user-friendly guideline implementation materials that are concise and actionable. Evaluation of the guideline and implementation materials is crucial in understanding the influence of the recommendations.

Importance: In recent years, there has been an exponential increase in the research guiding pediatric mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) clinical management, in large part because of heightened concerns about the consequences of mTBI, also known as concussion, in children. The CDC National Center for Injury Prevention and Control's (NCIPC) Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC), a federal advisory committee, established the Pediatric Mild TBI Guideline workgroup to complete this systematic review summarizing the first 25 years of literature in this field of study. Objective: To conduct a systematic review of the pediatric mTBI literature to serve as the foundation for an evidence-based guideline with clinical recommendations associated with the diagnosis and management of pediatric mTBI. Evidence Review: Using a modified Delphi process, the authors selected 6 clinical questions on diagnosis, prognosis, and management or treatment of pediatric mTBI. Two consecutive searches were conducted on PubMed, Embase, ERIC, CINAHL, and SportDiscus. The first included the dates January 1, 1990, to November 30, 2012, and an updated search included December 1, 2012, to July 31, 2015. The initial search was completed from December 2012 to January 2013; the updated search, from July 2015 to August 2015. Two authors worked in pairs to abstract study characteristics independently for each article selected for inclusion. A third author adjudicated disagreements. The risk of bias in each study was determined using the American Academy of Neurology Classification of Evidence Scheme. Conclusion statements were developed regarding the evidence within each clinical question, and a level of confidence in the evidence was assigned to each conclusion using a modified GRADE methodology. Data analysis was completed from October 2014 to May 2015 for the initial search and from November 2015 to April 2016 for the updated search. Findings: Validated tools are available to assist clinicians in the diagnosis and management of pediatric mTBI. A significant body of research exists to identify features that are associated with more serious TBI-associated intracranial injury, delayed recovery from mTBI, and long-term sequelae. However, high-quality studies of treatments meant to improve mTBI outcomes are currently lacking. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review was used to develop an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and management of pediatric mTBI. While an increasing amount of research provides clinically useful information, this systematic review identified key gaps in diagnosis, prognosis, and management.

Consider “Jane,” a 30-year-old female patient brought in by emergency medical services (EMS) to the emergency department (ED), reflecting just one of more than 100,000 opioid overdose patients treated in EDs each year. Naloxone, an opioid antagonist and overdose reversal drug, was administered in the field by EMS; however, additional rounds of naloxone were required in the ED because of high opioid potency. Once she was stabilized, a quick review of her chart revealed several recent visits for opioid-related overdoses. A review of her history revealed that she was prescribed opioids initially in the ED 5 years earlier after sustaining minor injuries in a motor vehicle crash. She began misusing prescription opioids during the following year, receiving prescriptions from multiple providers in primary care clinics and EDs. Yet, because a check of the state’s prescription drug monitoring program was not completed before any prescription, her use of multiple providers and high dosages was not identified, and opioids continued to be prescribed in different clinical settings for pain management. Soon thereafter, Jane initiated heroin use and presented to the ED several times with cellulitis from injection drug use, as well as after an overdose of prescription and illicit opioids. Each time, she was discharged without a referral to substance use treatment or without a naloxone kit.

In 2016, 63 632 persons died of a drug overdose in the United States; 66.4% (42 249) involved an opioid.1 Opioid-involved deaths include prescription opioid analgesics (e.g., morphine, oxycodone), illicit opioids (e.g., heroin, illicitly manufactured fentanyl [IMF]), or both. Although prescription and illicit opioid overdoses are closely entwined,2 it is important to differentiate the deaths to craft appropriate prevention and response efforts. Unfortunately, disentangling these deaths is challenging because multiple drugs are often involved. Additionally, death certificate data do not specify whether the drugs were pharmaceutically manufactured and prescribed by a health care provider, pharmaceutically manufactured but not prescribed to the person (i.e., diverted prescriptions), or illicitly manufactured.

PROBLEM/CONDITION: Drug overdoses are a leading cause of injury death in the United States, resulting in approximately 52,000 deaths in 2015. Understanding differences in illicit drug use, illicit drug use disorders, and overall drug overdose deaths in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas is important for informing public health programs, interventions, and policies. REPORTING PERIOD: Illicit drug use and drug use disorders during 2003-2014, and drug overdose deaths during 1999-2015. DESCRIPTION OF DATA: The National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) collects information through face-to-face household interviews about the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among the U.S. noninstitutionalized civilian population aged ≥12 years. Respondents include residents of households and noninstitutional group quarters (e.g., shelters, rooming houses, dormitories, migratory workers' camps, and halfway houses) and civilians living on military bases. NSDUH variables include sex, age, race/ethnicity, residence (metropolitan/nonmetropolitan), annual household income, self-reported drug use, and drug use disorders. National Vital Statistics System Mortality (NVSS-M) data for U.S. residents include information from death certificates filed in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Cases were selected with an underlying cause of death based on the ICD-10 codes for drug overdoses (X40-X44, X60-X64, X85, and Y10-Y14). NVSS-M variables include decedent characteristics (sex, age, and race/ethnicity) and information on intent (unintentional, suicide, homicide, or undetermined), location of death (medical facility, in a home, or other [including nursing homes, hospices, unknown, and other locations]) and county of residence (metropolitan/nonmetropolitan). Metropolitan/nonmetropolitan status is assigned independently in each data system. NSDUH uses a three-category system: Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) of ≥1 million persons; CBSA of <1 million persons; and not a CBSA, which for simplicity were labeled large metropolitan, small metropolitan, and nonmetropolitan. Deaths from NVSS-M are categorized by the county of residence of the decedent using CDC's National Center for Health Statistics 2013 Urban-Rural Classification Scheme, collapsed into two categories (metropolitan and nonmetropolitan). RESULTS: Although both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas experienced significant increases from 2003-2005 to 2012-2014 in self-reported past-month use of illicit drugs, the prevalence was highest for the large metropolitan areas compared with small metropolitan or nonmetropolitan areas throughout the study period. Notably, past-month use of illicit drugs declined over the study period for the youngest respondents (aged 12-17 years). The prevalence of past-year illicit drug use disorders among persons using illicit drugs in the past year varied by metropolitan/nonmetropolitan status and changed over time. Across both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, the prevalence of past-year illicit drug use disorders declined during 2003-2014. In 2015, approximately six times as many drug overdose deaths occurred in metropolitan areas than occurred in nonmetropolitan areas (metropolitan: 45,059; nonmetropolitan: 7,345). Drug overdose death rates (per 100,000 population) for metropolitan areas were higher than in nonmetropolitan areas in 1999 (6.4 versus 4.0), however, the rates converged in 2004, and by 2015, the nonmetropolitan rate (17.0) was slightly higher than the metropolitan rate (16.2). INTERPRETATION: Drug use and subsequent overdoses continue to be a critical and complicated public health challenge across metropolitan/nonmetropolitan areas. The decline in illicit drug use by youth and the lower prevalence of illicit drug use disorders in rural areas during 2012-2014 are encouraging signs. However, the increasing rate of drug overdose deaths in rural areas, which surpassed rates in urban areas, is cause for concern. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTIONS: Understanding the differences between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas in drug use, drug use disorders, and drug overdose deaths can help public health professionals to identify, monitor, and prioritize responses. Consideration of where persons live and where they die from overdose could enhance specific overdose prevention interventions, such as training on naloxone administration or rescue breathing. Educating prescribers on CDC's guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain (Dowell D, Haegerich TM, Chou R. CDC guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain-United States, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;66[No. RR-1]) and facilitating better access to medication-assisted treatment with methadone, buprenorphine, or naltrexone could benefit communities with high opioid use disorder rates.

Research has uncovered potential harms of long-term opioid therapy, particularly at high dosages(1). These findings make it clear that before starting long-term therapy or increasing dosages, clinicians and patients need to carefully weigh the uncertain benefits of opioids for chronic pain against their increasingly clear risks (2, 3). However, little evidence has been available to help weigh the benefits and harms of reducing dosages or discontinuing opioids in patients already receiving long-term therapy or to guide clinicians in how to taper opioids safely and effectively (4). Frank and colleagues’ review (5) provides helpful information for clinicians and patients about tapering and discontinuing long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain. | Conclusions should be drawn with caution given the overall very low quality of evidence, as noted by the authors. However, study quality was fair or good for 16 studies (many of which were published recently), and the review focuses on findings from these higher-quality studies. Among the higher-quality studies evaluating pain, function, and quality of life, all found improvements in all outcomes evaluated after opioid dose reduction. | It is important to note how dose reduction was accomplished. Opioids were tapered with buy-in from patients who agreed to decrease the dosage or discontinue therapy. Dosages were reduced relatively slowly (over 22 weeks in 1 study). Patients were provided multidisciplinary care through interdisciplinary pain programs or with behavioral interventions, such as cognitive behavioral therapy or mindfulness meditation, and were followed closely–at least weekly in some studies. Consistent with these practices, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain (2) recommends providing multimodal care for chronic pain, collaborating with patients, and tapering slowly.

This guideline provides recommendations for primary care clinicians who are prescribing opioids for chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care. The guideline addresses 1) when to initiate or continue opioids for chronic pain; 2) opioid selection, dosage, duration, follow-up, and discontinuation; and 3) assessing risk and addressing harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, and recommendations are made on the basis of a systematic review of the scientific evidence while considering benefits and harms, values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from experts, stakeholders, the public, peer reviewers, and a federally chartered advisory committee. It is important that patients receive appropriate pain treatment with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of treatment options. This guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the risks and benefits of opioid therapy for chronic pain, improve the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce the risks associated with long-term opioid therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death. CDC has provided a checklist for prescribing opioids for chronic pain (http://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/38025) as well as a website (http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/prescribingresources.html) with additional tools to guide clinicians in implementing the recommendations.

PROBLEM: Motor vehicle crashes kill more adolescents in the United States than any other cause, and often the teen is not wearing a seat belt. METHODS: Using data from the 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Surveys from 38 states, we examined teens' self-reported seat belt use while riding as a passenger and identified individual characteristics and environmental factors associated with always wearing a seat belt. RESULTS: Only 51% of high school students living in 38 states reported always wearing a seat belt when riding as a passenger; prevalence varied from 32% in South Dakota to 65% in Delaware. Seat belt use was 11 percentage points lower in states with secondary enforcement seat belt laws compared to states with primary enforcement laws. Racial/ethnic minorities, teens living in states with secondary enforcement seat belt laws, and those engaged in substance use were least likely to always wear their seat belts. The likelihood of always being belted declined steadily as the number of substance use behaviors increased. DISCUSSION: Seat belt use among teens in the United States remains unacceptably low. Results suggest that environmental influences can compound individual risk factors, contributing to even lower seat belt use among some subgroups. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: This study provides the most comprehensive state-level estimates to date of seat belt use among U.S. teens. This information can be useful when considering policy options to increase seat belt use and for targeting injury prevention interventions to high-risk teens. States can best increase teen seat belt use by making evidence-informed decisions about state policy options and prevention strategies.

Injury and violence prevention strategies have greater potential for impact when they are based on scientific evidence. Systematic reviews of the scientific evidence can contribute key information about which policies and programs might have the greatest impact when implemented. However, systematic reviews have limitations, such as lack of implementation guidance and contextual information, that can limit the application of knowledge. "Technical packages," developed by knowledge brokers such as the federal government, nonprofit agencies, and academic institutions, have the potential to be an efficient mechanism for making information from systematic reviews actionable. Technical packages provide information about specific evidence-based prevention strategies, along with the estimated costs and impacts, and include accompanying implementation and evaluation guidance to facilitate adoption, implementation, and performance measurement. We describe how systematic reviews can inform the development of technical packages for practitioners, provide examples of technical packages in injury and violence prevention, and explain how enhancing review methods and reporting could facilitate the use and applicability of scientific evidence.

Pain is one of the most common problems affecting patients. By one estimate, 11% of Americans experience daily pain.1 Over the past two decades in the United States, opioids have been used much more often—and other treatments less often—to manage chronic pain. In the 1990s, it was hoped that opioids could relieve chronic pain as effectively as they relieve suffering at the end of life, and that they could be used safely in the long term. Physicians were encouraged to discard “opiophobia”2 and use opioids to manage chronic pain based on small, uncontrolled studies reporting low rates of addiction. Now, however, it is unclear how effective long-term opioid therapy is for managing pain.3 | Because of the unique effects of opioids, including tolerance and physical dependence, the question of whether opioids relieve pain in the long term is important. Most controlled trials have evaluated their effectiveness for six weeks or less.3 Long-term opioid use is associated with significant risks, such as opioid use disorder, potentially fatal overdose, falls, motor vehicle injuries, and myocardial infarctions, and evidence shows that these risks increase with dose and duration of use.3 As many as one in four patients receiving long-term opioid therapy for noncancer pain in primary care settings has opioid use disorder.4 A recent population-based cohort study found that one out of 550 patients receiving opioid therapy for noncancer pain died from opioid-related causes at a median of 2.6 years from the first prescription.5 In patients whose dose was increased to more than 200 morphine milligram equivalents per day, 3.1% died of opioid-related causes.

IMPORTANCE: Primary care clinicians find managing chronic pain challenging. Evidence of long-term efficacy of opioids for chronic pain is limited. Opioid use is associated with serious risks, including opioid use disorder and overdose. OBJECTIVE: To provide recommendations about opioid prescribing for primary care clinicians treating adult patients with chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care. PROCESS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated a 2014 systematic review on effectiveness and risks of opioids and conducted a supplemental review on benefits and harms, values and preferences, and costs. CDC used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess evidence type and determine the recommendation category. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Evidence consisted of observational studies or randomized clinical trials with notable limitations, characterized as low quality using GRADE methodology. Meta-analysis was not attempted due to the limited number of studies, variability in study designs and clinical heterogeneity, and methodological shortcomings of studies. No study evaluated long-term (≥1 year) benefit of opioids for chronic pain. Opioids were associated with increased risks, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death, with dose-dependent effects. RECOMMENDATIONS: There are 12 recommendations. Of primary importance, nonopioid therapy is preferred for treatment of chronic pain. Opioids should be used only when benefits for pain and function are expected to outweigh risks. Before starting opioids, clinicians should establish treatment goals with patients and consider how opioids will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks. When opioids are used, clinicians should prescribe the lowest effective dosage, carefully reassess benefits and risks when considering increasing dosage to 50 morphine milligram equivalents or more per day, and avoid concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines whenever possible. Clinicians should evaluate benefits and harms of continued opioid therapy with patients every 3 months or more frequently and review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, for high-risk combinations or dosages. For patients with opioid use disorder, clinicians should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment, such as medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The guideline is intended to improve communication about benefits and risks of opioids for chronic pain, improve safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce risks associated with long-term opioid therapy.

Drinking and driving among adolescents and young adults remains a significant public health burden. Etiological research is needed to inform the development and selection of preventive interventions that might reduce alcohol-involved crashes and their tragic consequences. Youth assets-that is, skills, competencies, relationships, and opportunities-can help youth overcome challenges, successfully transition into adulthood, and reduce problem behavior. We examined the predictive influence of individual, relationship, and community assets on drinking and driving (DD) and riding with a drinking driver (RDD). We assessed prospective relationships through analysis of data from the Youth Assets Study, a community-based longitudinal study of socio-demographically diverse youth. Results from calculation of marginal models using a Generalized Estimating Equation approach revealed that parent and peer relationship and school connectedness assets reduced the likelihood of both drinking and driving and riding with a drinking driver approximately 1 year later. The most important and consistent asset that influenced DD and RDD over time was parental monitoring, highlighting the role of parental influence extending beyond the immediate teen driving context into young adulthood. Parenting-focused interventions could influence factors that place youth at risk for injury from DD to RDD, complementing other evidence-based strategies such as school-based instructional programs and zero tolerance Blood Alcohol Concentration laws for young and inexperienced drivers.

Health information technology is an emerging area of focus in clinical medicine with the potential to improve injury and violence prevention practice. With injuries being the leading cause of death for Americans aged 1-44 years, greater implementation of evidence-based preventive services, referral to community resources, and real-time surveillance of emerging threats is needed. Through a review of the literature and capturing of current practice in the field, this paper showcases how health information technology applied to injury and violence prevention can lead to strengthened clinical preventive services, more rigorous measurement of clinical outcomes, and improved injury surveillance, potentially resulting in health improvement.

BACKGROUND: Drug overdose deaths have been rising since the early 1990s and is the leading cause of injury death in the United States. Overdose from prescription opioids constitutes a large proportion of this burden. State policy and systems-level interventions have the potential to impact prescription drug misuse and overdose. METHODS: We searched the literature to identify evaluations of state policy or systems-level interventions using non-comparative, cross-sectional, before-after, time series, cohort, or comparison group designs or randomized/non-randomized trials. Eligible studies examined intervention effects on provider behavior, patient behavior, and health outcomes. RESULTS: Overall study quality is low, with a limited number of time-series or experimental designs. Knowledge and prescribing practices were measured more often than health outcomes (e.g., overdoses). Limitations include lack of baseline data and comparison groups, inadequate statistical testing, small sample sizes, self-reported outcomes, and short-term follow-up. Strategies that reduce inappropriate prescribing and use of multiple providers and focus on overdose response, such as prescription drug monitoring programs, insurer strategies, pain clinic legislation, clinical guidelines, and naloxone distribution programs, are promising. Evidence of improved health outcomes, particularly from safe storage and disposal strategies and patient education, is weak. CONCLUSIONS: While important efforts are underway to affect prescriber and patient behavior, data on state policy and systems-level interventions are limited and inconsistent. Improving the evidence base is a critical need so states, regulatory agencies, and organizations can make informed choices about policies and practices that will improve prescribing and use, while protecting patient health.

In the first three decades of life, more individuals in the USA die from injuries and violence than from any other cause. Millions more people survive and are left with physical, emotional, and financial problems. Injuries and violence are not accidents; they are preventable. Prevention has a strong scientific foundation, yet efforts are not fully implemented or integrated into clinical and community settings. In this Series paper, we review the burden of injuries and violence in the USA, note effective interventions, and discuss methods to bring interventions into practice. Alliances between the public health community and medical care organisations, health-care providers, states, and communities can reduce injuries and violence. We encourage partnerships between medical and public health communities to consistently frame injuries and violence as preventable, identify evidence-based interventions, provide scientific information to decision makers, and strengthen the capacity of an integrated health system to prevent injuries and violence.

Using a developmental, social-ecological approach to understand the etiology of health-risk behavior and inform primary prevention efforts, we assess the predictive effects of family and neighborhood social processes on youth physical fighting and weapon carrying. Specifically, we focus on relationships among youth and their parents, family communication, parental monitoring, as well as sense of community and neighborhood informal social control, support, concerns, and disorder. This study advances knowledge through its investigation of family and neighborhood structural factors and social processes together, employment of longitudinal models that estimate effects over adolescent development, and use of self-report and observational measures. Data from 1,093 youth/parent pairs were analyzed from the Youth Assets Study using a Generalized Estimating Equation approach; family and neighborhood assets and risks were analyzed as time varying and lagged. Similar family assets affected physical fighting and weapon carrying, whereas different neighborhood social processes influenced the two forms of youth violence. Study findings have implications for the primary prevention of youth violence, including the use of family-based approaches that build relationships and parental monitoring skills and community-level change approaches that promote informal social control and reduce neighborhood concerns about safety.

The public health approach to prevention places a unique emphasis on understanding which populations are at greatest risk for poor health; the factors that place different populations at risk for experiencing injury, death, disability, and related health outcomes; the preventive interventions that are most effective for universal, selected, and indicated populations; and the best methods for encouraging the translation, dissemination, and adoption of preventive interventions for various populations. This information can be valuable in maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of public health prevention approaches. The present article provides a commentary on the contributions of rigorous subgroup analysis to intervention research and, in particular, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) public health approach to violence prevention.

President Obama's administration has shown a renewed emphasis on evidence-based policy. The President's FY11 budget includes over US$100 million for rigorous evaluations to grow the number of interventions backed by strong evidence of effectiveness. Other efforts focus on increased funding for top tier programmes and practices, evaluation of programmes with some supportive evidence of effects, and testing of innovative programmes that are supported by preliminary research findings. | Youth violence prevention is an area of social and health policy that is ripe for the application of scientific evidence. Youth violence is a significant public health problem: homicide is the second leading cause of death for youth ages 10–24.1 As a result of decades of investment in research by federal agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health, as well as non-profit foundations, a substantial body of scientific evidence has uncovered factors that place youth at risk for experiencing violence, and strategies that may prevent violence from occurring. For example, with support from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the Division of Violence Prevention in the Injury Center at CDC, Blueprints for Violence Prevention has identified 11 Model programmes and 19 Promising programmes with significant positive effects on youth violence or risk factors for youth violence.2 | Recognising the extent of the evidence and the need for communities to incorporate primary prevention efforts, the Division of Violence Prevention is leading an evidence-based national initiative: Striving To Reduce Youth Violence Everywhere (STRYVE). Guided by a public health approach, STRYVE provides communities guidance based on the best available research to facilitate comprehensive, integrated, multisector activities to address youth violence (http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/STRYVE/index.html). To support the utilisation of evidence-based approaches in communities, however, STRYVE and other programmatic efforts require better scientific information regarding how to best support the scale-up of evidence-based approaches, and build prevention infrastructure and capacity in communities to allow sustainability.

Millions of people in the United States suffer the consequences of violence, including physical injuries, psychological trauma, and death. Solutions to violence have traditionally been reactive. Through the lens of the public health perspective, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) views violence as predictable based on various contributing factors, and thus as preventable. Within CDC, the Division of Violence Prevention (DVP) leads efforts to prevent injury, death, and disability, and to reduce the suffering and medical costs caused by violence. DVP employs a multidisciplinary, public health approach to identify factors associated with violence, and to develop, evaluate, and disseminate preventive interventions. Psychology is one discipline that has contributed to our approach. The authors present a series of violence prevention initiatives funded by the CDC that are framed within a public health perspective, with attention to the contributions of psychology to youth violence and child maltreatment prevention. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract).