ArticleBMJ open quality2021
Implementing screening for social determinants of health using the Core 5 screening tool.
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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex-based disparities in cardiovascular disease: Can polysocial screening mitigate the risk?American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Article
- Leveraging Social Risk Factor Screening Infrastructure in Rheumatology Clinics to Respond to Rising Rates of Tuberculosis Among Individuals Experiencing Homelessness.ACR open rheumatology · 2026Article
- Article
- Screening for Social Determinants of Health in Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Point-of-Care Feasibility Study.Arthritis care & research · 2025Observational
- Patient-reported health-related social needs obtained at the bedside and outcomes after elective major surgery.Surgery · 2025Article
- Daily Pleasure and Difficulties among Older Patients: Primary Care Setting in Japan.JMA journal · 2025Article
- Integrating Social Needs into Health Care: An Implementation Science Perspective.Annual review of public health · 2025Review
- Increasing Social Determinants of Health Screening Rates Among Six Endocrinology Centers Across the United States: Results From the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2024Article
- Screening tools to address social determinants of health in the United States: A systematic review.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Review
- Linking Adverse Childhood Experiences and Other Risk Factors to Subjective Cognitive Decline in an Aging Population.Preventing chronic disease · 2023Article
- Characterizing the relative frequency of clinician engagement with structured social determinants of health data.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- The 'PeerJ · 2023Article
- MS care: integrating advanced therapies and holistic management.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Review
- A Health System Framework for Addressing Structural Racism: Mass General Brigham's United Against Racism Initiative.Health equity · 2023Article
- Social determinants of health in multiple sclerosis.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2022Review
- A qualitative analysis of perceptions of and reactions to COVID-19.Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.) · 2022Article
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
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
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.