Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36409957›Full record

ReviewThe western journal of emergency medicine2022

2021 SAEM Consensus Conference Proceedings: Research Priorities for Developing Emergency Department Screening Tools for Social Risks and Needs.

Jacqueline Furbacher, Callan Fockele, Ben Del Buono, Laura Janneck, Cooper March, Melanie Molina, Herbet C Duber, Kelly M Doran, Michelle P Lin, Richelle J Cooper and 1 more

Abstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Patient centered or provider centered? The inclusion of social determinants of health in emergency department billing and coding.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2023
    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

11 authors.

Jacqueline FurbacherUniversity of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Department of Emergency Medicine, Worcester, Massachusetts.
Callan FockeleUniversity of Washington, Department of Emergency Medicine, Seattle, Washington.
Ben Del BuonoVirginia Commonwealth University, Department of Emergency Medicine, Richmond, Virginia.
Laura JanneckUniversity of Oklahoma School of Community Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Cooper MarchUniversity of Washington, Department of Emergency Medicine, Seattle, Washington.
Melanie MolinaUniversity of California, San Francisco, Department of Emergency Medicine, San Francisco, California.
Herbet C DuberUniversity of Washington, Department of Emergency Medicine, Seattle, Washington.
Kelly M DoranNYU School of Medicine, Departments of Emergency Medicine and Population Health, New York, New York.
Michelle P LinStanford University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Stanford, California.
Richelle J CooperUCLA School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
Payal ModiUniversity of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Department of Emergency Medicine, Worcester, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe Emergency Department (ED) acts as a safety net for our healthcare system. While studies have shown increased prevalence of social risks and needs among ED patients, there are many outstanding questions about the validity and use of social risks and needs screening tools in the ED setting.

methodsIn this paper, we present research gaps and priorities pertaining to social risks and needs screening tools used in the ED, identified through a consensus approach informed by literature review and external expert feedback as part of the 2021 SAEM Consensus Conference -- From Bedside to Policy: Advancing Social Emergency Medicine and Population Health.

resultsFour overarching research gaps were identified: (1) Defining the purpose and ethical implications of ED-based screening; (2) Identifying domains of social risks and needs; (3) Developing and validating screening tools; and (4) Defining the patient population and type of screening performed. Furthermore, the following research questions were determined to be of highest priority: (1) What screening tools should be used to identify social risks and needs? (2) Should individual EDs use a national standard screening tools or customized screening tools? (3) What are the most prevalent social risks and needs in the ED? and (4) Which social risks and needs are most amenable to intervention in the ED setting?

conclusionAnswering these research questions will facilitate the use of evidence-based social risks and needs screening tools that address knowledge gaps and improve the health of our communities by better understanding the underlying determinants contributing to their presentation and health outcomes.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningSocial Determinants of HealthDelivery of Health CareEmergency Service, HospitalHumansResearch

Identifiers

PMID36409957
PMCPMC9683763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.