Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37237346›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2023

The Healthy Democracy Kit: design, implementation, uptake, and impact of a novel voter registration toolkit for healthcare settings.

Madeline M Grade, Alexander W T Reardon, Yoonhee P Ha, Adi Steinhart, Alister F Martin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Madeline M Grade *Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA. madeline.grade@ucsf.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4888-360X
Alexander W T Reardon *Department of Emergency Medicine, The McGaw Medical Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, USA.ORCID 0009-0000-8970-2049
Yoonhee P Ha *Perelman School of Medicine, Center for Health Equity Advancement, and Center for Health Incentives & Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3525-1697
Adi SteinhartSchool of Medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, USA.
Alister F MartinDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7826-5939

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccess to voting is increasingly recognized as a social determinant of health. Health equity could be improved if healthcare workers (HCWs) routinely assessed the voter registration status of patients during clinical encounters and helped direct them towards appropriate resources. However, little consensus exists on how to achieve these tasks efficiently and effectively in healthcare settings. Intuitive and scalable tools that minimize workflow disruptions are needed. The Healthy Democracy Kit (HDK) is a novel voter registration toolkit for healthcare settings, featuring a wearable badge and posters that display quick response (QR) and text codes directing patients to an online hub for voter registration and mail-in ballot requests. The objective of this study was to assess national uptake and impact of the HDK prior to the 2020 United States (US) elections.

methodsBetween 19 May and 3 November 2020, HCWs and institutions could order and use HDKs to help direct patients to resources, free of cost. A descriptive analysis was conducted to summarize the characteristics of participating HCWs and institutions as well as the resultant total persons helped prepare to vote.

resultsDuring the study period, 13,192 HCWs (including 7,554 physicians, 2,209 medical students, and 983 nurses) from 2,407 affiliated institutions across the US ordered 24,031 individual HDKs. Representatives from 604 institutions (including 269 academic medical centers, 111 medical schools, and 141 Federally Qualified Health Centers) ordered 960 institutional HDKs. Collectively, HCWs and institutions from all 50 US states and the District of Columbia used HDKs to help initiate 27,317 voter registrations and 17,216 mail-in ballot requests.

conclusionsA novel voter registration toolkit had widespread organic uptake and enabled HCWs and institutions to successfully conduct point-of-care civic health advocacy during clinical encounters. This methodology holds promise for future implementation of other types of public health initiatives. Further study is needed to assess downstream voting behaviors from healthcare-based voter registration.

Indexed as

Health EquityPhysiciansDemocracyHealth PersonnelHumansPoliticsUnited StatesBehavioral insightsCivic healthHealth equityVoter registration

Identifiers

PMID37237346
PMCPMC10213595

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.