ArticleBMC health services research2025
Development and validation of a brief assessment of normative health and health-related social needs using the Simple Segmentation Tool.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07580690 (Integrating Health and Social Service Needs for Frail Elders at Point of Care), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Integrating Health and Social Service Needs for Frail Elders at Point of Care: Development and Evaluation of an IT-based Digital Needs-assessment Tool
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPopulation segmentation provides a promising solution to address patients' complex needs to provide "whole person" care. The primary objective of this study is to create an expert-based algorithm based on combinations of medical and social characteristics derived from the Simple Segmentation Tool (SST), that are indicative of high value health and health-related social service (HASS) needs for an elderly population. The secondary objective was to examine the association between failing to meet the HASS needs 3-months post hospital discharge suggested by the algorithm and adverse outcomes over the ensuing year. DESIGN &
settingBased on a parsimonious set of 10 patient characteristics identified in the SST, a representative expert panel was engaged using the Modified Appropriateness Methodology (MAM). A prospective study was then performed on patients admitted to the Singapore General Hospital, using HASS needs identified at discharge and met needs at 3 months post-discharge follow-up of services received, to assess whether unmet needs were associated with higher adverse outcomes in the year following discharge. The primary outcome of interest was time to all-cause mortality over 12-months post-discharge and was assessed with Cox regression analysis.
resultsThe MAM exercise resulted in 12 normatively defined high value services, using a combination of patients' medical and social characteristics based on the SST, as well as a list of means of providing those service needs. The all-cause mortality hazard ratio of having at least one unmet need versus having all needs met for individuals deemed to be chronically symptomatic at discharge was 1.949, (95% CI: 0.99 - 3.84, and p = 0.05), while for those who were either healthy or only had asymptomatic chronic conditions the all-cause mortality ratio of having at least one unmet need versus having all needs met was 0.28 (95% CI = 0.06-1.27 and p-value = 0.10). The hazard ratio for ED visits and hospital readmission were above one but did not reach level of 95% confidence level.
conclusionThe SST methodology provides a practical way to assess HASS needs that are predictive of mortality when needs are not met. It could serve as a screening tool to identify individuals who are likely to benefit from detailed care planning and follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.