ArticlePreventive medicine reports2020
Quantitative and qualitative results from implementation of a two-item food insecurity screening tool in healthcare settings in Connecticut.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Food for cancer health: the impact of a culturally tailored food voucher intervention on food insecurity and quality of life among Latino/a/e/x patients with cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Cumulative Household Food Insecurity Is Associated with Adverse Eating Behaviors Among Youth Exposed to Gestational Diabetes in Utero.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Clinical Care and Referral Pathways for Food Security Screening in Health Care: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Reasons for Choosing Telehealth Abortion Based on Food Insecurity Status: United States, 2021-2022.American journal of public health · 2026Article
- Bidirectional data harmonization across the multiple chronic disease disparities research consortium: A pipeline description of opportunities and challenges.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2026Article
- Article
- Opening Pandora's box - key facilitators of practice change in detecting and responding to childhood adversity - a practitioner perspective.BMC pediatrics · 2024Article
- Food Insecurity Screening in High-Income Countries, Tool Validity, and Implementation: A Scoping Review.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Realizing the potential of social determinants data in EHR systems: A scoping review of approaches for screening, linkage, extraction, analysis, and interventions.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Caregiver Perspectives on Pediatric Primary Care Clinic-Based Food and Nutrition Assistance Programs.Journal of health care for the poor and underserved · 2024Article
- Article
- Integrating Social Care into Healthcare: A Review on Applying the Social Determinants of Health in Clinical Settings.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- Implementing food bank and healthcare partnerships: a pilot study of perspectives from charitable food systems in Texas.BMC public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Millions of Americans face food insecurity, yet a universal screening tool is not in place. Food insecurity is known to be associated with poor health outcomes such as heart disease, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension in adults, and low school performance and mental illness in children. From January 2017 through February 2017, we utilized a validated two-item screening tool to assess the prevalence of households at risk for food insecurity and conducted a focus group of pediatricians. Patients at a Federally Qualified Health Center in New Haven, Connecticut were screened. Pediatricians of the American Academy of Pediatricians comprised the focus group. 534 of 1272 screening tool respondents were at risk for food insecurity (41.4%). Male respondents had higher prevalence than females (46.3% vs 38.9%, p = 0.009), and Hispanics (34.4%) less than Whites (54.4%) and Blacks (53.8%) (p < 0.001). Moreover, we executed a qualitative study of pediatricians' perception of food insecurity screening via a focus group. Themes that emerged from the focus group were agreement on the high importance of food insecurity screening, concern from caregivers about child neglect, and the difficulty of implementing the screening tool due to time constraints. We achieved successful implementation of the screening tool into the electronic medical record with a high completion rate of 97.9%. Identified barriers to universal screening for food insecurity include lack of efficient methods to direct food-insecure patients to resources and continued stigma regarding food insecurity.
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.