Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39925319›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2025

The Combined and Comparative Impacts of Financial Incentives Versus Practice Facilitation Implementation Support for Social Risk Screening in Community Health Centers.

Danielle Hessler, Miguel Marino, Jorge Kaufmann, Rachel Gold, Anne King, Holly Wing, Jenna Donovan, Maura Pisciotta, Sara Ackerman, Bruce Goldberg and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2025. 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

11 authors.

Danielle HesslerUniversity of California, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4568-6953
Miguel MarinoOregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0066-4478
Jorge KaufmannOregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Rachel GoldOCHIN Inc., Portland, Oregon, USA.
Anne KingOregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Holly WingUniversity of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Jenna DonovanOCHIN Inc., Portland, Oregon, USA.
Maura PisciottaOCHIN Inc., Portland, Oregon, USA.
Sara AckermanUniversity of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Bruce GoldbergOregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Laura M GottliebUniversity of California, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2669-4066

Funding

AHRQ HHS 1R18HS026435-01A1AHRQ HHS R18 HS026435
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine the impact of two interventions aimed at increasing the adoption of social risk screening in community health centers (CHCs). STUDY SETTING AND

designIntervention CHCs were in one of three groups, which received either: (1) tailored practice facilitation-focused social risk screening implementation supports; (2) financial incentives for screening; and (3) both practice facilitation and financial incentives in staggered order. A group of control clinics was identified through propensity score matching and a difference-in-difference analysis compared effects across groups. DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTIC SAMPLE: Using electronic health record data, we calculated monthly rates of social risk screening (per 100 adult patients) at 32 intervention clinics (19 practice facilitation supports only, 6 financial incentives only, 7 both financial incentives and practice facilitation supports), and 32 control clinics. PRINCIPAL

findingsCompared to control clinics, clinics in any intervention group had a greater increase in average monthly social risk screenings from pre- to post-intervention that was maintained over the 24 months following intervention (difference-in-difference: 4.66, 95% CI: 0.89, 8.43). In the primary analysis, clinics engaged in both interventions increased screening rates when practice facilitation implementation supports were added to financial incentives (12 months 3.70, 95% CI: 0.34, 7.07; 24 months 4.18, 95% CI: -0.01, 8.87); adding financial incentives to practice facilitation supports resulted in increased screening rates but did not reach statistical significance.

conclusionsThis study is the first to compare different interventions intended to bolster CHCs' social risk screening activities. As social risk screening becomes increasingly tied to US policy and payment structures, it is critical to identify strategies that can support implementation in settings serving underserved populations. Our findings suggest modest impacts of both financial incentives and practice facilitation supports.

Indexed as

Community Health CentersMass ScreeningMotivationAdultElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReimbursement, Incentivecommunity health centersfinancial incentivespractice facilitationsocial determinants of healthsocial risk screening

Identifiers

PMID39925319
PMCPMC12052507

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.