OBJECTIVE: Our study assessed child-serving health care providers' attitudes and knowledge related to identification and treatment of tic disorders including Tourette syndrome (TS), among children. METHODS: We analyzed cross-sectional data from the 2022 Fall DocStyles, a web-based survey of health care providers. The analytic sample included 1058 child-serving providers (403 family practitioners, 232 internists, 251 pediatricians, and 172 nurse practitioners or physician assistants). We calculated point prevalence estimates and 95% confidence intervals and used χ2 tests to statistically test differences by provider type and metro status of practice setting. RESULTS: Less than two-thirds of providers (62.4%) considered evaluation of tics as their role, less than half (40.8%) considered diagnosis of tic disorders their role, and around one-fourth considered treatment of patients with tic disorders to be their role (27.3%). Lack of knowledge of tics/TS and lack of comfort evaluating patients for tics and tic disorders were the most often reported barriers to identification and diagnosis for most provider types, and across practice metro status categories. Online training was the most preferred source of information about tics and tic disorders overall and for each provider type. CONCLUSION: These findings support previous reports indicating challenges in health care provider comfort and knowledge in identifying and diagnosing tic disorders, and the need for more education opportunities around evaluation and diagnosis. Communication and training to support the needs of child-serving providers could improve the access to care for children with tics and tic disorders.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders with significant individual and societal negative impacts of the disorder continuing into adulthood (Danielson et al. in Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, in press; Landes and London in Journal of Attention Disorders 25:3-13, 2021). Genetic and environmental risk (e.g., modifiable exposures such as prenatal tobacco exposure and child maltreatment) for ADHD is likely multifactorial (Faraone et al. in Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 128:789-818, 2021). However, the evidence for potentially modifiable contextual risks is spread across studies with different methodologies and ADHD criteria limiting understanding of the relationship between early risk factors and later childhood ADHD. Using common methodology across six meta-analyses (Bitsko et al. in Prevention Science, 2022; Claussen et al. in Prevention Science 1-23, 2022; Dimitrov et al. in Prevention Science, 2023; Maher et al. in Prevention Science, 2023; Robinson, Bitsko et al. in Prevention Science, 2022; So et al. in Prevention Science, 2022) examining 59 risk factors for childhood ADHD, the papers in this special issue use a public health approach to address prior gaps in the literature. This introductory paper provides examples of comprehensive public health approaches focusing on policy, systems, and environmental changes across socio-ecological contexts to improve health and wellbeing through prevention, early intervention, and support across development using findings from these meta-analyses. Together, the findings from these studies and a commentary by an author independent from the risk studies have the potential to minimize risk conditions, prioritize prevention efforts, and improve the long-term health and wellbeing of children and adults with ADHD.

This manuscript is being submitted as a Commentary; Abstract not applicable.

Congregate work and residential locations are at increased risk for infectious disease transmission including respiratory illness outbreaks. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is primarily spread person to person through respiratory droplets. Nationwide, the meat and poultry processing industry, an essential component of the U.S. food infrastructure, employs approximately 500,000 persons, many of whom work in proximity to other workers (1). Because of reports of initial cases of COVID-19, in some meat processing facilities, states were asked to provide aggregated data concerning the number of meat and poultry processing facilities affected by COVID-19 and the number of workers with COVID-19 in these facilities, including COVID-19-related deaths. Qualitative data gathered by CDC during on-site and remote assessments were analyzed and summarized. During April 9-27, aggregate data on COVID-19 cases among 115 meat or poultry processing facilities in 19 states were reported to CDC. Among these facilities, COVID-19 was diagnosed in 4,913 (approximately 3%) workers, and 20 COVID-19-related deaths were reported. Facility barriers to effective prevention and control of COVID-19 included difficulty distancing workers at least 6 feet (2 meters) from one another (2) and in implementing COVID-19-specific disinfection guidelines.* Among workers, socioeconomic challenges might contribute to working while feeling ill, particularly if there are management practices such as bonuses that incentivize attendance. Methods to decrease transmission within the facility include worker symptom screening programs, policies to discourage working while experiencing symptoms compatible with COVID-19, and social distancing by workers. Source control measures (e.g., the use of cloth face covers) as well as increased disinfection of high-touch surfaces are also important means of preventing SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Mitigation efforts to reduce transmission in the community should also be considered. Many of these measures might also reduce asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission (3). Implementation of these public health strategies will help protect workers from COVID-19 in this industry and assist in preserving the critical meat and poultry production infrastructure (4).