Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38007462›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2023

Screening for poverty and related social determinants to improve knowledge of and links to resources (SPARK): development and cognitive testing of a tool for primary care.

Itunuoluwa Adekoya, Alannah Delahunty-Pike, Dana Howse, Leanne Kosowan, Zita Seshie, Eunice Abaga, Jane Cooney, Marjeiry Robinson, Dorothy Senior, Alexander Zsager and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2023. 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. Article
  6. Identifying social prescribing core outcomes using a Delphi approach: findings and future directions.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Addressing the inverse care law in Scottish general practice: systematic scoping review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Development of the 10-question household foodwork interactional assessment questionnaire (FIA-Q10).The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024
    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

18 authors.

Itunuoluwa AdekoyaUpstream Lab, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, MAP Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Unity Health Toronto, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada.
Alannah Delahunty-PikeDepartment of Family Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Dana HowsePrimary Healthcare Research Unit, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, Canada.
Leanne KosowanDepartment of Family Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Zita SeshieDepartment of Community Health & Epidemiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.
Eunice AbagaUpstream Lab, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, MAP Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Unity Health Toronto, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada.
Jane CooneyUpstream Lab, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, MAP Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Unity Health Toronto, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada.
Marjeiry RobinsonUpstream Lab, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, MAP Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Unity Health Toronto, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada.
Dorothy SeniorUpstream Lab, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, MAP Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Unity Health Toronto, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada.
Alexander ZsagerUpstream Lab, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, MAP Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Unity Health Toronto, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada.
Kris Aubrey-BasslerPrimary Healthcare Research Unit, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's, Canada.
Mandi IrwinDepartment of Family Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Lois JacksonSchool of Health and Human Performance, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Alan KatzDepartment of Family Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
Emily MarshallDepartment of Family Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Nazeem MuhajarineSaskatchewan Population Health and Evaluation Research Unit, Saskatoon, Canada.
Cory NeudorfSaskatchewan Population Health and Evaluation Research Unit, Saskatoon, Canada.
Andrew D PintoUpstream Lab, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, MAP Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Unity Health Toronto, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada. andrew.pinto@utoronto.ca.

Funding

CIHR 156885
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare organizations are increasingly exploring ways to address the social determinants of health. Accurate data on social determinants is essential to identify opportunities for action to improve health outcomes, to identify patterns of inequity, and to help evaluate the impact of interventions. The objective of this study was to refine a standardized tool for the collection of social determinants data through cognitive testing.

methodsAn initial set of questions on social determinants for use in healthcare settings was developed by a collaboration of hospitals and a local public health organization in Toronto, Canada during 2011-2012. Subsequent research on how patients interpreted the questions, and how they performed in primary care and other settings led to revisions. We administered these questions and conducted in-depth cognitive interviews with all the participants, who were from Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Cognitive interviewing was used, with participants invited to verbalize thoughts and feelings as they read the questions. Interview notes were grouped thematically, and high frequency themes were addressed.

resultsThree hundred and seventy-five individuals responded to the study advertisements and 195 ultimately participated in the study. Although all interviews were conducted in English, participants were diverse. For many, the value of this information being collected in typical healthcare settings was unclear, and hence, we included descriptors for each question. In general, the questions were understood, but participants highlighted a number of ways the questions could be changed to be even clearer and more inclusive. For example, more response options were added to the question of sexual orientation and the "making ends meet" question was completely reworded in light of challenges to understand the informal phrasing cited by English as a Second Language (ESL) users of the tool.

conclusionIn this work we have refined an initial set of 16 sociodemographic and social needs questions into a simple yet comprehensive 18-question tool. The changes were largely related to wording, rather than content. These questions require validation against accepted, standardized tools. Further work is required to enable community data governance, and to ensure implementation of the tool as well as the use of its data is successful in a range of organizations.

Indexed as

PovertySocial Determinants of HealthFemaleHumansMaleNeuropsychological TestsOntarioPrimary Health CareFamily medicineHealthcare disparitiesHealth equityMinority and vulnerable populationsPrimary health careQualitative researchScreening toolSocial determinants of healthSociodemographicsSocioeconomic disparities in healthValidation study

Identifiers

PMID38007462
PMCPMC10675961

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.