ArticleAJPM focus2025
Differences in Healthcare Utilization Across 2 Social Health Support Modalities: Results From a Randomized Pilot Evaluation.
Article in AJPM focus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing the community resource specialist to address social needs in primary care: results from a pragmatic quality improvement evaluation.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- "It doesn't feel as much like my downfall for needing help": patient perspectives on pathways for improving health through social health integration.BMC health services research · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of this study was to assess differences in utilization outcomes among patients with social needs as part of a pilot social health integration program in 2 clinics in an integrated health system in the Pacific Northwest. Methods: Patients who reported social needs between October 2022 and January 2023 were randomized to receive support from either local, clinic-based community resource specialists or a centralized Connections Call Center. The authors used administrative and claims data for 534 participants to compare the following utilization outcomes between arms over 9 months after randomization: primary care encounters, specialty care encounters, behavioral health encounters, emergency department encounters, inpatient admissions, urgent care encounters, and secure patient messages. Using an intent-to-treat approach, the authors used negative binomial regression models to compare visit counts and logistic regression to estimate differences in the probability of any emergency department visit or inpatient admissions between groups. The authors conducted secondary as-treated analyses comparing participants who received resource information from community resource specialists with those who did not. Results: Unadjusted results showed no statistically significant differences between community resource specialists and Connections Call Center. Adjusted results showed that community resource specialist participants received 1.04 more primary care encounters than Connections Call Center participants (95% CI=0.336, 1.746). As-treated results showed that participants who received support from community resource specialists had higher counts of primary care encounters, specialty care encounters, and patient messages than those who did not. Conclusions: Beyond social needs navigation, clinic-based supports may be better integrated with care teams to provide ongoing support for patients' medical needs. Findings from this primary care social health pilot program showed that local, clinic-based support was associated with greater outpatient utilization than a call center support.
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.