The quality of evidence in the document was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health Care (Table 1). Summary Statement In Canada multivitamin tablets with folic acid are usually available in 3 formats: regular over-the-counter multivitamins with 0.4 to 0.6 mg folic acid, prenatal over-the-counter multivitamins with 1.0 mg folic acid, and prescription multivitamins with 5.0 mg folic acid. (III) Recommendations 1. Women should be advised to maintain a healthy folate-rich diet; however, folic acid/multivitamin supplementation is needed to achieve the red blood cell folate levels associated with maximal protection against neural tube defect. (III-A) 2. All women in the reproductive age group (12-45 years of age) who have preserved fertility (a pregnancy is possible) should be advised about the benefits of folic acid in a multivitamin supplementation during medical wellness visits (birth control renewal, Pap testing, yearly gynaecological examination) whether or not a pregnancy is contemplated. Because so many pregnancies are unplanned, this applies to all women who may become pregnant. (III-A) 3. Folic acid supplementation is unlikely to mask vitamin B12 deficiency (pernicious anemia). Investigations (examination or laboratory) are not required prior to initiating folic acid supplementation for women with a risk for primary or recurrent neural tube or other folic acid-sensitive congenital anomalies who are considering a pregnancy. It is recommended that folic acid be taken in a multivitamin including 2.6 ug/day of vitamin B12 to mitigate even theoretical concerns. (II-2A) 4. Women at HIGH RISK, for whom a folic acid dose greater than 1 mg is indicated, taking a multivitamin tablet containing folic acid, should be advised to follow the product label and not to take more than 1 daily dose of the multivitamin supplement. Additional tablets containing only folic acid should be taken to achieve the desired dose. (II-2A) 5. Women with a LOW RISK for a neural tube defect or other folic acid-sensitive congenital anomaly and a male partner with low risk require a diet of folate-rich foods and a daily oral multivitamin supplement containing 0.4 mg folic acid for at least 2 to 3 months before conception, throughout the pregnancy, and for 4 to 6 weeks postpartum or as long as breast-feeding continues. (II-2A) 6. Women with a MODERATE RISK for a neural tube defect or other folic acid-sensitive congenital anomaly or a male partner with moderate risk require a diet of folate-rich foods and daily oral supplementation with a multivitamin containing 1.0 mg folic acid, beginning at least 3 months before conception. Women should continue this regime until 12 weeks' gestational age. (1-A) From 12 weeks' gestational age, continuing through the pregnancy, and for 4 to 6 weeks postpartum or as long as breast-feeding continues, continued daily supplementation should consist of a multivitamin with 0.4 to 1.0 mg folic acid. (II-2A) 7. Women with an increased or HIGH RISK for a neural tu...

BackgroundAppropriate screening may reduce the mortality and morbidity of colorectal, breast, and cervical cancers. However, effective implementation strategies are warranted if the full benefits of screening are to be realized. As part of a larger agenda to create an implementation guideline, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate interventions designed to increase the rate of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The interventions considered were: client reminders, client incentives, mass media, small media, group education, one-on-one education, reduction in structural barriers, reduction in out-of-pocket costs, provider assessment and feedback interventions, and provider incentives. Our primary outcome, screening completion, was calculated as the overall median post-intervention absolute percentage point (PP) change in completed screening tests.MethodsOur first step was to conduct an iterative scoping review in the research area. This yielded three relevant high-quality systematic reviews. Serving as our evidentiary foundation, we conducted a formal update. Randomized controlled trials and cluster randomized controlled trials, published between 2004 and 2010, were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PSYCHinfo.ResultsThe update yielded 66 studies new eligible studies with 74 comparisons. The new studies ranged considerably in quality. Client reminders, small media, and provider audit and feedback appear to be effective interventions to increase the uptake of screening for three cancers. One-on-one education and reduction of structural barriers also appears effective, but their roles with CRC and cervical screening, respectively, are less established. More study is required to assess client incentives, mass media, group education, reduction of out-of-pocket costs, and provider incentive interventions.ConclusionThe new evidence generally aligns with the evidence and conclusions from the original systematic reviews. This review served as the evidentiary foundation for an implementation guideline. Poor reporting, lack of precision and consistency in defining operational elements, and insufficient consideration of context and differences among populations are areas for additional research.

Research RechercheT he psychosocial health of a pregnant woman and her family is a significant predictor of intrapartum, newborn and postpartum outcomes. [1][2][3][4] A critical review of the literature has identified an association between antenatal psychosocial risk factors and the poor postpartum outcomes of woman abuse, child abuse, postpartum depression and couple dysfunction. 5 Clinicians have indicated that a practical tool to help them systematically collect and record prenatal psychosocial information would be helpful. 6 Although specific and often wellvalidated tools are available to predict or detect child abuse, woman abuse or depression, [7][8][9][10] clinicians are unlikely to use them because of time constraints.1 Other forms aid in collecting more comprehensive antenatal psychosocial data, 11-14 but they are not evidence-based, and were developed to predict obstetric or newborn rather than psychosocial outcomes.In contrast, the Antenatal Psychosocial Health Assessment (ALPHA) form (Appendix 1) was designed to identify antenatal psychosocial risk factors for poor postnatal psychosocial outcomes. It incorporates 15 risk factors found through critical literature review 5 to be associated with woman abuse, child abuse, postpartum depression and couple dysfunction.15 These risk factors are grouped intuitively by topic, with suggested questions, into 4 categories: family factors, maternal factors, substance use and family violence. The ALPHA form has been field-tested by obstetricians, family physicians, midwives and nurses, 15,16 who have found using it to be feasible and useful. 15 Pregnant women appreciate and feel comfortable with the psychosocial enquiry. 15 The ALPHA form was developed as a screening tool to help providers systematically identify areas of psychosocial concern. Once feasibility was established, 15 the next step was to determine whether using it in regular practice would increase the number of concerns identified.We sought to determine whether health care providers using the ALPHA form detected more antenatal psychosocial concerns in their pregnant patients than clinicians practising usual prenatal care. A secondary objective was to determine women's and providers' satisfaction with the ALPHA form. MethodsFour communities in Ontario were chosen as study sites, including urban, suburban and small-town practices, with patients from diverse socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. Family physicians, obstetricians and midwives were approached at rounds We sought to determine whether health care providers using the ALPHA form detected more antenatal psychosocial concerns among pregnant women than providers practising usual prenatal care. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 4 communities in Ontario. Family physicians, obstetricians and midwives who see at least 10 prenatal patients a year enrolled 5 eligible women each. Providers in the intervention group attended an educational workshop on using the ALPHA form and completed the form with enrolled women. The control grou...

Systematic collection of family history is a prerequisite for identifying genetic risk. This study reviewed tools applicable to the primary care assessment of family history of breast, colorectal, ovarian, and prostate cancer. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central were searched for publications. All primary study designs were included. Characteristics of the studies, the family history collection tools, and the setting were evaluated. Of 40 eligible studies, 18 relevant family history tools were identified, with 11 developed for use in primary care. Most collected information on more than one cancer and on affected relatives used self-administered questionnaires and paperbased formats. Eleven tools had been evaluated relative to current practice, demonstrating 46 -78% improvement in data recording over family history recording in patient charts and 75-100% agreement with structured genetic interviews. Few tools have been developed specifically for primary care settings. The few that have been evaluated performed well. The very limited evidence, which depends in part on extrapolation from studies in settings other than primary care, suggests that systematic tools may add significant family health information compared with current primary care practice. The effect of their use on health outcomes has not been evaluated. A positive family history is a risk factor for many chronic diseases, reflecting "the consequences of genetic susceptibilities, shared environment, and common behaviors." 1 The systematic collection and assessment of family history information is a potentially valuable tool in preventive medicine and is crucial in the identification of genetic risk. 2 In some situations, family history information alone can form the basis for offering patients appropriately tailored preventive interventions. 1,3 In addition, the clinical predictive value of even the most accurate DNA test depends on penetrance of the gene mutation and requires family history information for test interpretation. 4 Thus, family history information is potentially useful both as a clinical tool in its own right and also as an important adjunct to DNA-based testing.Cancers are a group of relatively common conditions in which, for at least some, family history seems to be an important risk factor. This report focuses on four types of cancer: breast, colorectal, ovarian, and prostate. These are some of the most common cancers where the role of family history is recognized as a risk factor. [5][6][7][8][9] In some families, these cancers form part of recognized hereditary syndromes. 9 In some cases, ethnic ancestry is also associated with risk of cancer-associated genetic mutation, such as breast cancer in the Ashkenazi Jewish community. 10 -13 Family history taking can be conducted as part of a diseasespecific approach, which aims to identify risk of selected single gene disorders (e.g., hereditary breast or colon cancer) for the purpose of offering appropriate specialist referral and management. 14,15 Alternatively, it...