Trial reportBMC public health2025
Comparison of clinic-based assistance versus a centralized call center on patient-reported social needs: findings from a randomized pilot social health integration program.
Trial report in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differences in health care costs between two social health support programs: findings from a randomized social health integration pilot program.BMC health services research · 2025Trial
- Optimizing the community resource specialist to address social needs in primary care: results from a pragmatic quality improvement evaluation.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Differences in Healthcare Utilization Across 2 Social Health Support Modalities: Results From a Randomized Pilot Evaluation.AJPM focus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs social need screening and intervention activities increase, the long-term objective of our work is to inform how to implement social health into healthcare settings. The purpose of this study is to assess changes in social needs over time between two social health support programs as part of a social health integration effort in two primary care clinics within an integrated health system in Washington state.
methodsWe used stratified randomization to assign 535 patients who self-reported social needs on a screener between October 2022-January 2023 to one of two social health support programs: local, clinic-based Community Resource Specialists (CRS) or a centralized Connections Call Center (CCC). Participants were assessed at 2- and 5-months post-randomization. We compared the count of social needs across programs at each timepoint using joint tests, and estimated differences between programs using generalized linear mixed effects models at each timepoint.
resultsWe randomized 535 participants, with 270 assigned to CCC and 272 to CRS. Of those randomized, 61% completed at least one follow-up survey (N = 329). This analytic sample consisted of 153 CCC participants and 176 participants under CRS. CRS participants reported 0.08 (95% CI: -0.710, 0.864) more needs at 2 months and 0.42 (CI: -0.288, 1.126) more needs at 5 months compared to CCC participants (p > 0.05). An exploratory as-treated analysis within the CRS group suggested that referral receipt was associated with fewer needs over time.
conclusionsThere were no significant differences between CRS and CCC participants' social needs over time. However, receiving referrals to social services may lead to reduced social needs.
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.