Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34376389›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2021

Implementing screening for social determinants of health using the Core 5 screening tool.

Alison Bradywood, Treasa Susie Leming-Lee, Richard Watters, Craig Blackmore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The 'PeerJ · 2023
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. A qualitative analysis of perceptions of and reactions to COVID-19.Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.) · 2022
    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

4 authors.

Alison BradywoodNursing Administration, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA alison.bradywood@virginiamason.org.
Treasa Susie Leming-LeeSchool of Nursing, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Richard WattersSchool of Nursing, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Craig BlackmoreCenter for Health Care Improvement Science, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, DC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social determinants of health (SDOH) have been documented to underpin 80% of overall health and are being increasingly recognised as key factors in addressing tertiary health outcomes. Yet, despite the widespread acceptance of the association of SDOH with health outcomes, more than two-thirds of hospitals do not screen for social risk factors that indicate individual-level adverse SDOH. Such screening for social risk factors represents the first step in connecting patients with resources and documents the prevalence of social needs. The aim of this project was to implement the Core 5 social risk screening tool and evaluate its efficacy and usability in identifying social risk factors in a presurgical spine population. Prior to this implementation, screening for social risk had not been performed. The Model for Improvement provided a framework for implementing and evaluating the Core 5 social risk screening tool. Methods included implementation of a patient self-report social risk screening tool, referral workflow to connect patients with needed resources and evaluation of staff feasibility in using the Core 5 tool. The results indicated that the screening tool identified patients with social risk factors and staff reported perceptions of efficacy and usability in clinical workflow. Overall, 52 of 88 (59%) of subjects in the presurgical spine population were effectively screened. Of these, five patients (10%) had identified social needs that needed to be addressed prior to surgery. The staff usability survey for the Core 5 tool demonstrated high acceptance and usability, with an average score of 4.4 (out of 5). Future work should evaluate the efficacy of the screening tool in other ambulatory and tertiary settings.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningSocial Determinants of HealthDelivery of Health CareHumansReferral and Consultationback painhealth equityPDSAprehospital care

Identifiers

PMID34376389
PMCPMC8356186

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.