ArticleCureus2020
Investigating Social Determinants of Health in an Urban Direct Primary Care Clinic.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Direct Primary Care: Financial Analysis and Potential to Reshape the U.S. Healthcare Landscape.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Social Determinants of Health Phenotypes and Cardiometabolic Condition Prevalence Among Patients in a Large Academic Health System: Latent Class Analysis.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- Screening tools for employment in clinical healthcare delivery systems: a content analysis.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Understanding Patient Perceptions Towards Direct Primary Care: A Focus Group Study.Journal of patient experience · 2022Article
- A Systematic Literature Review of Community-Based Participatory Health Research with Sexual and Gender Minority Communities.Health equity · 2022Review
- An Analysis of Individual and Contextual-Level Disparities in Screening, Treatment, and Outcomes for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Direct primary care (DPC) is an emerging model of care distinguished by lower price points for quality comprehensive services. The affordability of DPC attracts a broad patient population that may encompass a wide range of socioeconomic needs. It is critical to identify social determinants of health (SDH) in DPC practices to design strategies aimed to mitigate social risk factors, especially for vulnerable populations that can only afford DPC. As part of this SDH screening initiative, the purpose of the present descriptive study was to assess the SDH characteristics of patients from an urban DPC clinic. To identify these SDH factors, a cohort of 31 patients from the DPC clinic was asked to complete a questionnaire from the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patient Assets, Risks, and Experiences (PRAPARE). The survey outcomes revealed top socioeconomic needs in the domains of stress (77.4%), insurance (51.6%), social integration and support (38.7%), unmet medicine or healthcare needs (35.5%), and unemployment (32.2%). In adopting a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach, the research team shared the survey outcomes with the DPC clinic to facilitate improvements in overall patient care and implementation of services aimed to address social risk factors as identified in the study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.