ArticleBMJ open2022
Development and validation of a social vulnerabilities survey for medical inpatients.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transcatheter Patent Foramen Ovale Closure and Complete Remission of Migraine in Children: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Article
- An Overview of Instruments to Assess Vulnerability in Healthcare: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesOur objective was to validate a Social Vulnerabilities Survey that was developed to identify patient barriers in the following domains: (1) salience or priority of health; (2) social support; (3) transportation; and (4) finances.
designCross-sectional psychometric study.Questions for one domain (health salience) were developed de novo while questions for the other domains were derived from national surveys and/or previously validated questionnaires. We tested construct (ie, convergent and discriminative) validity for these new questions through hypothesis testing of correlations between question responses and patient characteristics. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to determine structural validity of the survey as a whole.
settingPatients admitted to the inpatient internal medicine service at a tertiary care hospital in Calgary, Canada.
participantsA total of 406 patients were included in the study.
resultsThe mean age of respondents was 55.5 (SD 18.6) years, with the majority being men (55.4%). In feasibility testing of the first 107 patients, the Social Vulnerabilities Survey was felt to be acceptable, comprehensive and met face validity. Hypothesis testing of the health salience questions revealed that the majority of observed correlations were exactly as predicted. Exploratory factor analysis of the global survey revealed the presence of five factors (eigenvalue >1): social support, health salience, drug insurance, transportation barriers and drug costs. All but four questions loaded to these five factors.
conclusionsThe Social Vulnerabilities Survey has face, construct and structural validity. It can be used to measure modifiable social vulnerabilities, such that their effects on health outcomes can be explored and understood.
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.