Faculty Bibliography

Medical journals play an important role in achieving health equity by diversifying their leadership, but there is a dearth of published data on how they are faring. The objective of this study was to assess the proportions of the underrepresented in medicine (UIM) racial/ ethnic minorities in medical journal leadership. We pre-selected 6 prominent general medicine journals, 9 prominent specialty journals, and 5 "control" journals (covering public health, health equity, and bench research), assembled names of all editors/ editorial board members listed on the website-based journal mastheads and used major public internet search engines to obtain information about sex, race, and ethnicity. We searched the journal databases for all articles published on racial/ethnic disparities or health equity by each journal between January 2015 to October 2020. Among general medicine journals, there were no UIM Editors-in-Chief or Deputy Editors; 1 (2%) Black and 3 (5%) Hispanic among Associate Editors (n=65); and 8 (6%) Black, and 2 (2%) Hispanic among Editorial Board Members (n=136). Among specialty journals, there were no UIM Editors-in-Chief; 3 (7%) Black and 0 (0%) Hispanic Deputy or Associate Editors (n=43); 6 (6%) Black and 5 (5%) Hispanic Editorial Board Members (n=105). Among "control" journals, there were Black Editors-in-Chief, but no Hispanic Editors-in-chief; 7 (8%) Black and 1(1%) Hispanic Deputy and Associate editors (n=86); 43 (47%) Black and 3 (3%) Hispanic Editorial Board Members (n=92). There is considerable room for improvement to enhance the involvement of UIM racial/ethnic minority individuals in leadership of prominent general and specialty medical journals.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Social media advertising by fast food companies continues to increase globally, and exposure to food advertising contributes to poor diet and negative health outcomes (eg, cardiovascular disease). McDonald's-the largest fast food company in the world-operates in 101 countries, but little is known about their marketing techniques in various regions. The objective of this study was to compare the social media advertising practices of McDonald's-the largest fast food company in the world-in 15 high-income, upper-middle-income and lower-middle-income countries. Methods/UNASSIGNED:We randomly selected official McDonald's Instagram accounts for 15 high-income, upper-middle-income and lower-middle-income countries. We captured all the screenshots that McDonald's posted on those Instagram accounts from September to December 2019. We quantified the number of followers, 'likes', 'comments' and video views associated with each account in April 2020. We used content analysis to examine differences in the marketing techniques. Results/UNASSIGNED:The 15 accounts collectively maintained 10 million followers and generated 3.9 million 'likes', 164 816 comments and 38.2 million video views. We identified 849 posts. The three lower-middle-income countries had more posts (n=324; M, SD=108.0, 38.2 posts) than the five upper-middle-income countries (n=227; M, SD=45.4, 37.5 posts) and seven high-income countries (n=298; M, SD=42.6, 28.2 posts). Approximately 12% of the posts in high-income countries included child-targeted themes compared with 22% in lower-middle-income countries. Fourteen per cent of the posts in high-income countries included price promotions and free giveaways compared with 40% in lower-middle-income countries. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Social media advertising has enabled McDonald's to reach millions of consumers in lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income countries with disproportionately greater child-targeted ads and price promotions in lower-middle-income countries. Such reach is concerning because of the increased risk of diet-related illnesses, including cardiovascular disease, in these regions.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Lung cancer is the second most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death in the US. In 2020, an estimated 228 820 persons were diagnosed with lung cancer, and 135 720 persons died of the disease. The most important risk factor for lung cancer is smoking. Increasing age is also a risk factor for lung cancer. Lung cancer has a generally poor prognosis, with an overall 5-year survival rate of 20.5%. However, early-stage lung cancer has a better prognosis and is more amenable to treatment. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To update its 2013 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on the accuracy of screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and on the benefits and harms of screening for lung cancer and commissioned a collaborative modeling study to provide information about the optimum age at which to begin and end screening, the optimal screening interval, and the relative benefits and harms of different screening strategies compared with modified versions of multivariate risk prediction models. Population/UNASSIGNED:This recommendation statement applies to adults aged 50 to 80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. Evidence Assessment/UNASSIGNED:The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT has a moderate net benefit in persons at high risk of lung cancer based on age, total cumulative exposure to tobacco smoke, and years since quitting smoking. Recommendation/UNASSIGNED:The USPSTF recommends annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT in adults aged 50 to 80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. Screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked for 15 years or develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy or the ability or willingness to have curative lung surgery. (B recommendation) This recommendation replaces the 2013 USPSTF statement that recommended annual screening for lung cancer with LDCT in adults aged 55 to 80 years who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

Importance:Chlamydia and gonorrhea are among the most common sexually transmitted infections in the US. Infection rates are highest among adolescents and young adults of both sexes. Chlamydial and gonococcal infections in women are usually asymptomatic and may lead to pelvic inflammatory disease and its associated complications. Newborns of pregnant persons with untreated infection may develop neonatal chlamydial pneumonia or gonococcal or chlamydial ophthalmia. Infection in men may lead to urethritis and epididymitis. Both types of infection can increase risk of acquiring or transmitting HIV. Objective:To update its 2014 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in sexually active adolescents and adults, including pregnant persons. Population:Asymptomatic, sexually active adolescents and adults, including pregnant persons. Evidence Assessment:The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for chlamydia in all sexually active women 24 years or younger and in women 25 years or older who are at increased risk for infection has moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for gonorrhea in all sexually active women 24 years or younger and in women 25 years or older who are at increased risk for infection has moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in men. Recommendation:The USPSTF recommends screening for chlamydia in all sexually active women 24 years or younger and in women 25 years or older who are at increased risk for infection. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends screening for gonorrhea in all sexually active women 24 years or younger and in women 25 years or older who are at increased risk for infection. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in men. (I statement).

Importance:Dental caries is the most common chronic disease in children in the US. According to the 2011-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, approximately 23% of children aged 2 to 5 years had dental caries in their primary teeth. Prevalence is higher in Mexican American children (33%) and non-Hispanic Black children (28%) than in non-Hispanic White children (18%). Dental caries in early childhood is associated with pain, loss of teeth, impaired growth, decreased weight gain, negative effects on quality of life, poor school performance, and future dental caries. Objective:To update its 2014 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on screening and interventions to prevent dental caries in children younger than 5 years. Population:Asymptomatic children younger than 5 years. Evidence Assessment:The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that there is a moderate net benefit of preventing future dental caries with oral fluoride supplementation at recommended doses in children 6 months or older whose water supply is deficient in fluoride. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that there is a moderate net benefit of preventing future dental caries with fluoride varnish application in all children younger than 5 years. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient on performing routine oral screening examinations for dental caries by primary care clinicians in children younger than 5 years and that the balance of benefits and harms of screening cannot be determined. Recommendation:The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians prescribe oral fluoride supplementation starting at age 6 months for children whose water supply is deficient in fluoride. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians apply fluoride varnish to the primary teeth of all infants and children starting at the age of primary tooth eruption. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening examinations for dental caries performed by primary care clinicians in children younger than 5 years. (I statement).

Importance:Hypertension is a prevalent condition that affects approximately 45% of the adult US population and is the most commonly diagnosed condition at outpatient office visits. Hypertension is a major contributing risk factor for heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and chronic kidney disease. Objective:To reaffirm its 2015 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for hypertension in adults, the accuracy of office blood pressure measurement for initial screening, and the accuracy of various confirmatory blood pressure measurement methods. Population:Adults 18 years or older without known hypertension. Evidence Assessment:Using a reaffirmation deliberation process, the USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for hypertension in adults has substantial net benefit. Recommendation:The USPSTF recommends screening for hypertension in adults 18 years or older with office blood pressure measurement. The USPSTF recommends obtaining blood pressure measurements outside of the clinical setting for diagnostic confirmation before starting treatment. (A recommendation).

Importance:Preeclampsia is one of the most serious health problems that affect pregnant persons. It is a complication in approximately 4% of pregnancies in the US and contributes to both maternal and infant morbidity and mortality. Preeclampsia also accounts for 6% of preterm births and 19% of medically indicated preterm births in the US. There are racial and ethnic disparities in the prevalence of and mortality from preeclampsia. Non-Hispanic Black women are at greater risk for developing preeclampsia than other women and experience higher rates of maternal and infant morbidity and perinatal mortality. Objective:To update its 2014 recommendation, the USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of low-dose aspirin use to prevent preeclampsia. Population:Pregnant persons at high risk for preeclampsia who have no prior adverse effects with or contraindications to low-dose aspirin. Evidence Assessment:The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that there is a substantial net benefit of daily low-dose aspirin use to reduce the risk for preeclampsia, preterm birth, small for gestational age/intrauterine growth restriction, and perinatal mortality in pregnant persons at high risk for preeclampsia. Recommendation:The USPSTF recommends the use of low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d) as preventive medication for preeclampsia after 12 weeks of gestation in persons who are at high risk for preeclampsia. (B recommendation).