Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34468710›Full record

ReviewJAMA2021

Screening and Interventions for Social Risk Factors: Technical Brief to Support the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Michelle Eder, Michelle Henninger, Shauna Durbin, Megan O Iacocca, Allea Martin, Laura M Gottlieb, Jennifer S Lin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JAMA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
32.5field-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

103 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 158 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. A Systematic Review of Electronic Community Resource Referral Systems.American journal of preventive medicine · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Prevalence and Impact of Social Risk in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: National Estimates From the United States.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2025
    Article
  20. Prenatal homelessness, food insecurity, and unemployment and adverse infant outcomes in a California cohort, 2007-2020.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025
    Article

43 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Michelle EderKaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Michelle HenningerKaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Shauna DurbinCenter for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California, Davis, Sacramento.
Megan O IacoccaKaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Allea MartinKaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Laura M GottliebDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Jennifer S LinKaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon.
Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research · USCenter For Policy Research · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

AHRQ HHS HHSA290201500007I
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Evidence-based guidance is limited on how clinicians should screen for social risk factors and which interventions related to these risk factors improve health outcomes. Objective: To describe research on screening and interventions for social risk factors to inform US Preventive Services Task Force considerations of the implications for its portfolio of recommendations. Data Sources: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts (through 2018); Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network evidence library (January 2019 through May 2021); surveillance through May 21, 2021; interviews with 17 key informants. Study Selection: Individual-level and health care system-level interventions with a link to the health care system that addressed at least 1 of 7 social risk domains: housing instability, food insecurity, transportation difficulties, utility needs, interpersonal safety, education, and financial strain. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data from studies and a second investigator evaluated data abstractions for completeness and accuracy; key informant interviews were recorded, transcribed, summarized, and integrated with evidence from the literature; narrative synthesis with supporting tables and figures. Main Outcomes and Measures: Validity of multidomain social risk screening tools; all outcomes reported for social risk-related interventions; challenges or unintended consequences of screening and interventions. Results: Many multidomain social risk screening tools have been developed, but they vary widely in their assessment of social risk and few have been validated. This technical brief identified 106 social risk intervention studies (N = 5 978 596). Of the interventions studied, 73 (69%; n = 127 598) addressed multiple social risk domains. The most frequently addressed domains were food insecurity (67/106 studies [63%], n = 141 797), financial strain (52/106 studies [49%], n = 111 962), and housing instability (63/106 studies [59%], n = 5 881 222). Food insecurity, housing instability, and transportation difficulties were identified by key informants as the most important social risk factors to identify in health care. Thirty-eight studies (36%, n = 5 850 669) used an observational design with no comparator, and 19 studies (18%, n = 15 205) were randomized clinical trials. Health care utilization measures were the most commonly reported outcomes in the 68 studies with a comparator (38 studies [56%], n = 111 102). The literature and key informants described many perceived or potential challenges to implementation of social risk screening and interventions in health care. Conclusions and Relevance: Many interventions to address food insecurity, financial strain, and housing instability have been studied, but more randomized clinical trials that report health outcomes from social risk screening and intervention are needed to guide widespread implementation in health care.

Indexed as

Preventive Health ServicesPrimary Health CareSocial Determinants of HealthSocioeconomic FactorsAdvisory CommitteesFood InsecurityGuidelines as TopicHousingHumansMass ScreeningOutcome Assessment, Health CareRisk FactorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID34468710
PMCPMC13460784
OpenAlexW3197002583

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.