Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28661888›Full record

ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2016

Health workers who ask about social determinants of health are more likely to report helping patients: Mixed-methods study.

Anila Naz, Ellen Rosenberg, Neil Andersson, Ronald Labonté, Anne Andermann, CLEAR Collaboration

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Anila NazGraduate of the master's program in the Department of Family Medicine and a research assistant at St Mary's Research Centre at McGill University in Montreal, Que.
Ellen RosenbergAssociate Professor in the Department of Family Medicine and St Mary's Research Centre at McGill University.
Neil AnderssonProfessor in the Department of Family Medicine and Executive Director of CIET-PRAM (Community Information and Epidemiological Technologies-Participatory Research at McGill) at McGill University.
Ronald LabontéProfessor and Canada Research Chair in Globalization and Health Equity in the School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine at the University of Ottawa in Ontario, and Adjunct Professor in the Department of Community Health and Epidemiology at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon.
Anne AndermannAssociate Professor in the Department of Family Medicine, Associate Member of the Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, and Research Associate in Public Health and Primary Health Care at St Mary's Research Centre at McGill University. anne.andermann@mail.mcgill.ca.
CLEAR Collaboration

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the feasibility of implementing a clinical decision aid called the CLEAR Toolkit that helps front-line health workers ask their patients about social determinants of health, refer to local support resources, and advocate for wider social change.

designA mixed-methods study using quantitative (online self-completed questionnaires) and qualitative (in-depth interviews, focus groups, and key informant interviews) methods.

settingA large, university-affiliated family medicine teaching centre in Montreal, Que, serving one of the most ethnically diverse populations in Canada.

participantsFifty family doctors and allied health workers responded to the online survey (response rate of 50.0%), 15 completed in-depth interviews, 14 joined 1 of 2 focus groups, and 3 senior administrators participated in key informant interviews.

methodsOur multimethod approach included an online survey of front-line health workers to assess current practices and collect feedback on the tool kit; in-depth interviews to understand why they consider certain patients to be more vulnerable and how to help such patients; focus groups to explore barriers to asking about social determinants of health; and key informant interviews with high-level administrators to identify organizational levers for changing practice. MAIN

findingsSenior administrators consider asking about social determinants to be part of the mandate of health workers. However, barriers perceived by front-line clinicians include insufficient training in social history taking, uncertainty about how to address these issues in clinical practice, and a lack of knowledge of local referral resources. Health workers with specific ways of asking patients about their social challenges were more likely to report having helped their patients as compared with those who did not know how to ask (93.8% vs 52.9%;

conclusionWhile health workers recognize the importance of social determinants, many are unsure how to ask about these often sensitive issues or where to refer patients. The CLEAR Toolkit can be easily adapted to local contexts to help front-line health workers initiate dialogue around social challenges and better support patients in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDecision Support Systems, ClinicalSocial Determinants of HealthAdultCommunicationFeasibility StudiesFemaleFocus GroupsHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMedical History TakingMiddle AgedProfessional-Patient RelationsQualitative ResearchQuebec

Identifiers

PMID28661888
PMCPMC9844577

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.