Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27170792›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM

Building a Foundation to Reduce Health Inequities: Routine Collection of Sociodemographic Data in Primary Care.

Andrew D Pinto, Gabriela Glattstein-Young, Anthony Mohamed, Gary Bloch, Fok-Han Leung, Richard H Glazier

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

77 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The quality of social determinants data in the electronic health record: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Andrew D PintoFrom the Department of Family and Community Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (ADP, GB, F-HL, RHG); the Department of Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (ADP, GB, F-HL, RHG); the Centre for Research on Inner City Health, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada (ADP, RHG); the Division of Clinical Public Health, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (ADP, RHG); the Department of Family Practice, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (GG-Y); Inner City Health, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (AM); and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (RHG). andrew.pinto@utoronto.ca.
Gabriela Glattstein-YoungFrom the Department of Family and Community Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (ADP, GB, F-HL, RHG); the Department of Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (ADP, GB, F-HL, RHG); the Centre for Research on Inner City Health, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada (ADP, RHG); the Division of Clinical Public Health, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (ADP, RHG); the Department of Family Practice, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (GG-Y); Inner City Health, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (AM); and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (RHG).
Anthony MohamedFrom the Department of Family and Community Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (ADP, GB, F-HL, RHG); the Department of Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (ADP, GB, F-HL, RHG); the Centre for Research on Inner City Health, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada (ADP, RHG); the Division of Clinical Public Health, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (ADP, RHG); the Department of Family Practice, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (GG-Y); Inner City Health, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (AM); and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (RHG).
Gary BlochFrom the Department of Family and Community Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (ADP, GB, F-HL, RHG); the Department of Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (ADP, GB, F-HL, RHG); the Centre for Research on Inner City Health, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada (ADP, RHG); the Division of Clinical Public Health, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (ADP, RHG); the Department of Family Practice, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (GG-Y); Inner City Health, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (AM); and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (RHG).
Fok-Han LeungFrom the Department of Family and Community Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (ADP, GB, F-HL, RHG); the Department of Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (ADP, GB, F-HL, RHG); the Centre for Research on Inner City Health, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada (ADP, RHG); the Division of Clinical Public Health, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (ADP, RHG); the Department of Family Practice, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (GG-Y); Inner City Health, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (AM); and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (RHG).
Richard H GlazierFrom the Department of Family and Community Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (ADP, GB, F-HL, RHG); the Department of Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (ADP, GB, F-HL, RHG); the Centre for Research on Inner City Health, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada (ADP, RHG); the Division of Clinical Public Health, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (ADP, RHG); the Department of Family Practice, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (GG-Y); Inner City Health, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (AM); and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (RHG).

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDetailed data on social determinants of health can facilitate the identification of inequities in access to health care. We report on a sociodemographic data collection tool used in a family medicine clinic.

methodsFour major health organizations in Toronto collaborated to identify a set of 14 questions that covered a range of social determinants of health. These were translated into 13 languages. This survey was self-administered using an electronic tablet to a convenience sample of 407 patients in the waiting room of a primary care clinic. Data were uploaded directly to the electronic medical record.

resultsThe rate of valid responses provided for each question was high, ranging from 84% to 100%. The questions with the highest number of patients selecting "do not know" and "prefer not to answer" pertained to disabilities and income. Patients reported finding the process acceptable. In subsequent implementation across 5 clinics, 10,536 patients have been surveyed; only 724 (6.9%) declined to participate.

conclusionCollecting data on social determinants of health through a self-administered survey, and linking them to a patient's chart, is feasible and acceptable. A modified survey is now administered to all patients. Such data are already being used to identify health inequities, develop novel interventions, and evaluate their impact on health outcomes.

Indexed as

Data CollectionAdultAmbulatory Care FacilitiesDemographyElectronic Health RecordsFamily PracticeFeasibility StudiesHealthcare DisparitiesHealth Services AccessibilityHumansOntarioPilot ProjectsPrimary Health CareSocial Determinants of HealthSocioeconomic FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesEpidemiologyHealth Care DisparitiesSocial Determinants of HealthSocial Problems

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.