Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35224551›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2022

A pilot mixed-methods randomized controlled trial of verbal versus electronic screening for adverse social determinants of health.

Wendy Macias-Konstantopoulos, Gia Ciccolo, Alona Muzikansky, Margaret Samuels-Kalow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Prevalence of Health Harming Legal Needs of Patients Seeking Care in the Emergency Department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. The 'PeerJ · 2023
    Article
  14. 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.

Wendy Macias-KonstantopoulosDepartment of Emergency Medicine Massachusetts General Hospital Boston Massachusetts USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5752-2104
Gia CiccoloDepartment of Emergency Medicine Massachusetts General Hospital Boston Massachusetts USA.
Alona MuzikanskyBiostatistics Center, Division of Clinical Research, Mass General Research Institute Massachusetts General Hospital Boston Massachusetts USA.
Margaret Samuels-KalowDepartment of Emergency Medicine Massachusetts General Hospital Boston Massachusetts USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesExamining the social risks that influence the health of patients accessing emergency care can inform future efforts to improve health outcomes. The optimal modality for screening in the emergency department (ED) has not yet been identified. We conducted a mixed methods evaluation of the impact of screening modality on patient satisfaction with the screening process.

methodsPatients were enrolled at a large urban academic ED and randomized to verbal versus electronic modalities following informed consent. Participants completed a short demographic survey, a brief validated health literacy test, and a social need and risk screening tool. Participants were purposively sampled to complete qualitative interviews balanced across 4 groups defined by health literacy scores (high vs limited) and screening modality. Quantitative outcomes included screening results and satisfaction with the screening process; qualitative questions focused on experience with the screening process, barriers, and facilitators to screening.

resultsOf 554 patients assessed, 236 were randomized (115 verbal, 121 electronic). Participants were 23% Hispanic, 6% non-Hispanic Black, 58% non-Hispanic White, 38% publicly insured, and 57% privately insured. Two-thirds (67%) identified social needs and risks and the majority (81%) reported satisfaction with the screening. Screening modality was not associated with satisfaction with screening process after adjustment for language, health literacy, and social risk (adjusted odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.32, 1.71).

conclusionScreening modality was not associated with overall satisfaction with screening process. Future strategies can consider the advantage of multimodal screening options, including the use of electronic tools to streamline screening and expand scalability and sustainability.

Indexed as

health‐related social risksmultimodal screening strategypatient satisfactionscreening modalities

Identifiers

PMID35224551
PMCPMC8847702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.