Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36915136›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Stakeholder perspectives on social screening in US healthcare settings.

Benjamín Aceves, Emilia De Marchis, Vishalli Loomba, Erika M Brown, Laura M Gottlieb

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Benjamín AcevesSchool of Public Health, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive, 92182, San Diego, CA, USA. baceves@sdsu.edu.
Emilia De MarchisDepartment of Family & Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 995 Potrero Ave, 94110, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Vishalli LoombaSocial Interventions Research and Evaluation Network, University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California Street, Suite 465, 94118, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Erika M BrownSocial Interventions Research and Evaluation Network, University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California Street, Suite 465, 94118, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Laura M GottliebDepartment of Family & Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 995 Potrero Ave, 94110, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Funding

NIMHD NIH HHS L60 MD016560
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence on the health impacts of social conditions has led US healthcare systems to consider identifying and addressing social adversity-e.g. food, housing, and transportation insecurity-in care delivery settings. Social screening is one strategy being used to gather patient information about social circumstances at the point of care. While several recent studies describe the rapid proliferation of social screening activities, little work has explored either why or how to implement social screening in clinical settings. Our study objectives were to assess diverse healthcare stakeholder perspectives on both the rationale for social screening and evidence needed to inform practice and policy-relevant implementation decisions.

methodsWe convened five focus groups with US experts representing different stakeholder groups: patient advocates, community-based organizations, healthcare professionals, payers, and policymakers. In total, 39 experts participated in approximately 90-minute long focus groups conducted between January-March 2021. A inductive thematic analysis approach was used to analyze discussions.

resultsThree themes emerged from focus groups, each reflecting the tension between the national enthusiasm for screening and existing evidence on the effectiveness and implementation of screening in clinical settings: (1) ambiguity about the rationale for social screening; (2) concerns about the relavence of screening tools and approaches, particularly for historically marginalized populations; (3) lack of clarity around the resources needed for implementation and scaling.

conclusionWhile participants across groups described potential benefits of social screening, they also highlighted knowledge gaps that interfered with realizing these benefits. Efforts to minimize and ideally resolve these knowledge gaps will advance future social screening practice and policy.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelFocus GroupsHumansHealth equityHealth services researchQualitative researchScreeningSocial care

Identifiers

PMID36915136
PMCPMC10012605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read1
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.