Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30201636›Full record

ArticleAnnals of family medicine2018

Adoption of Social Determinants of Health EHR Tools by Community Health Centers.

Rachel Gold, Arwen Bunce, Stuart Cowburn, Katie Dambrun, Marla Dearing, Mary Middendorf, Ned Mossman, Celine Hollombe, Peter Mahr, Gerardo Melgar and 3 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of family medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 155 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
155citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
42.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

155 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 244 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. A Systematic Review of Electronic Community Resource Referral Systems.American journal of preventive medicine · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Evaluating Redundancy and Biases in EHR Social Determinants of Health Data Screening.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Rachel GoldKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon Rachel.Gold@kpchr.org.
Arwen BunceKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon.
Stuart CowburnOCHIN, Inc, Portland, Oregon.
Katie DambrunOCHIN, Inc, Portland, Oregon.
Marla DearingOCHIN, Inc, Portland, Oregon.
Mary MiddendorfOCHIN, Inc, Portland, Oregon.
Ned MossmanOCHIN, Inc, Portland, Oregon.
Celine HollombeKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon.
Peter MahrMultnomah County Health Department, Portland, Oregon.
Gerardo MelgarCowlitz Family Health Center, Longview, Washington.
James DavisKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon.
Laura GottliebUniversity of California, San Francisco, California.
Erika CottrellOCHIN, Inc, Portland, Oregon.
Ochin · USKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research · USMultnomah County Health Department · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Assess Social determinantS using EHRs in Safety net clinicS: Diabetes OutcomesR18DK105463 · NIDDK · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI GOLD, RACHEL · 2015 to 2016
$595k
NIDDK NIH HHS R18 DK105463
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis pilot study assessed the feasibility of implementing electronic health record (EHR) tools for collecting, reviewing, and acting on patient-reported social determinants of health (SDH) data in community health centers (CHCs). We believe it is the first such US study.

methodsWe implemented a suite of SDH data tools in 3 Pacific Northwest CHCs in June 2016, and used mixed methods to assess their adoption through July 2017. We modified the tools at clinic request; for example, we added questions that ask if the patient wanted assistance with SDH needs.

resultsSocial determinants of health data were collected on 1,130 patients during the study period; 97% to 99% of screened patients (n = 1,098) had ≥1 SDH need documented in the EHR, of whom 211 (19%) had an EHR-documented SDH referral. Only 15% to 21% of patients with a documented SDH need indicated wanting help. Examples of lessons learned on adoption of EHR SDH tools indicate that clinics should: consider how to best integrate tools into existing workflow processes; ensure that staff tasked with SDH efforts receive adequate tool training and access; and consider that timing of data entry impacts how and when SDH data can be used.

conclusionsOur results indicate that adoption of systematic EHR-based SDH documentation may be feasible, but substantial barriers to adoption exist. Lessons from this study may inform primary care providers seeking to implement SDH-related efforts, and related health policies. Far more research is needed to address implementation barriers related to SDH documentation in EHRs.

Indexed as

Social Determinants of HealthCommunity Health CentersDocumentationElectronic Health RecordsFeasibility StudiesHealth Plan ImplementationHumansPilot ProjectsReferral and Consultationcommunity health centerselectronic health recordsimplementationsocial determinants of health

Identifiers

PMID30201636
PMCPMC6131002
OpenAlexW2891941547

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.