Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34530826›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Implementation of social needs screening in primary care: a qualitative study using the health equity implementation framework.

Connor Drake, Heather Batchelder, Tyler Lian, Meagan Cannady, Morris Weinberger, Howard Eisenson, Emily Esmaili, Allison Lewinski, Leah L Zullig, Amber Haley and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04587336 (Tailored Approaches to Reduce Distress and Improve Self-Management for Veterans With Diabetes), which is not on this map. Cited by 60 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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.

NCT04587336 completednot on this map

Tailored Approaches to Reduce Distress and Improve Self-Management for Veterans With Diabetes (TARDIS) - Survey & Qualitative Interview

TypeobservationalSponsorVA Office of Research and DevelopmentRan2020 to 2025Enrolled225ConditionsDiabetes, Diabetes Distress, Self-Management, VeteranArmsCognitive Interview, Baseline Survey, Qualitative Interviews
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A Systematic Review of Electronic Community Resource Referral Systems.American journal of preventive medicine · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Social Needs Screening Tools for Clinical Populations in Australia and New Zealand: A Scoping Review and Critical Analysis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Social risk factors in pediatric gastroenterology.Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition · 2026
    Article
  12. How High-Performing Community Health Clinics Accomplish Social Risk Screening.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors.

Connor DrakeDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. connor.drake@duke.edu.
Heather BatchelderCenter for Personalized Health Care, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Tyler LianDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Meagan CannadyCenter for Personalized Health Care, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Morris WeinbergerDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Howard EisensonLincoln Community Health Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Emily EsmailiLincoln Community Health Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Allison LewinskiDuke University School of Nursing, Durham, NC, USA.
Leah L ZulligDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Amber HaleyDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
David EdelmanCenter of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, USA.
Christopher M SheaDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScreening in primary care for unmet individual social needs (e.g., housing instability, food insecurity, unemployment, social isolation) is critical to addressing their deleterious effects on patients' health outcomes. To our knowledge, this is the first study to apply an implementation science framework to identify implementation factors and best practices for social needs screening and response.

methodsGuided by the Health Equity Implementation Framework (HEIF), we collected qualitative data from clinicians and patients to evaluate barriers and facilitators to implementing the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients' Assets, Risks, and Experiences (PRAPARE), a standardized social needs screening and response protocol, in a federally qualified health center. Eligible patients who received the PRAPARE as a standard of care were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. We also obtained front-line clinician perspectives in a semi-structured focus group. HEIF domains informed a directed content analysis.

resultsPatients and clinicians (i.e., case managers) reported implementation barriers and facilitators across multiple domains (e.g., clinical encounters, patient and provider factors, inner context, outer context, and societal influence). Implementation barriers included structural and policy level determinants related to resource availability, discrimination, and administrative burden. Facilitators included evidence-based clinical techniques for shared decision making (e.g., motivational interviewing), team-based staffing models, and beliefs related to alignment of the PRAPARE with patient-centered care. We found high levels of patient acceptability and opportunities for adaptation to increase equitable adoption and reach.

conclusionOur results provide practical insight into the implementation of the PRAPARE or similar social needs screening and response protocols in primary care at the individual encounter, organizational, community, and societal levels. Future research should focus on developing discrete implementation strategies to promote social needs screening and response, and associated multisector care coordination to improve health outcomes and equity for vulnerable and marginalized patient populations.

Indexed as

Health EquityFocus GroupsHumansImplementation SciencePrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchHealth equity implementation frameworkPRAPAREPrimary careSocial determinants of healthSocial needs

Identifiers

PMID34530826
PMCPMC8445654

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.