Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39480419›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Clinician and Patient Perspectives on the Exchange of Sensitive Social Determinants of Health Information.

Catherine M DesRoches, Deborah Wachenheim, Annalays Garcia, Kendall Harcourt, JaWanna Henry, Ria Shah, Vaishali Patel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. 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. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Interoperability of health-related social needs data at US hospitals.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors.

Catherine M DesRochesDepartment of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Deborah WachenheimOpenNotes, Division of General Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Annalays GarciaOpenNotes, Division of General Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Kendall HarcourtOpenNotes, Division of General Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
JaWanna HenryDepartment of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy and Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Washington, DC.
Ria ShahOpenNotes, Division of General Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Vaishali PatelDepartment of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy and Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Washington, DC.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Social determinant of health (SDOH) data are essential to individualized care and reducing health disparities. However, there is little standardization in the way that SDOH data are collected, and barriers to increasing the collection of such data exist at both the patient and clinician levels. Objective: To evaluate clinician, patient, and care partner perspectives on the barriers to and facilitators of patients sharing SDOH information with their clinicians. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study included clinicians, patients, and care partners across the United States. Focus groups were conducted between September 2022 and February 2023 to understand the experience of collecting, documenting, and exchanging SDOH data. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rapid assessment procedures were used to analyze focus group transcripts, creating summaries, codes, and themes mapped directly to the project research questions. Results: A total of 235 individuals participated, including 109 (46.4%) clinicians (60 [55.0%] male; 25 [22.9%] Asian, 2 [1.8%] Black, and 74 [67.9%] White) and 126 (53.6%) patients and care partners (45 [35.7%] male; 1 [0.8%] Asian, 48 [38.1%] Black, and 64 [50.8%] White). Clinicians and patients agreed that SDOH data are important for clinicians to know. Both clinicians and patients wanted a structured, standardized way to collect SDOH data in the future, accompanied by time for more in-depth discussion during the visit. However, they highlighted numerous issues that impact collecting these data, including beliefs about how the information will be used, the clinician-patient relationship, having enough of the right staff, time needed to collect SDOH information, and technology used to collect the data (eg, usability, standardization). Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study of the experience of collecting, documenting, and exchanging SDOH data underscores the ongoing barriers to widespread adoption of uniform approaches to SDOH data documentation as well as factors that may help lower those barriers, such as trusting patient-clinician relationships, greater transparency in how the data will be used, and targeted resources. A multifaceted approach to addressing the concerns raised by clinicians, patients, and care partners is required to ensure that such data can be captured in a way that improves care and allows for progress toward an equitable health care system.

Indexed as

Focus GroupsQualitative ResearchSocial Determinants of HealthAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhysician-Patient RelationsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID39480419
PMCPMC11528312

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.