ArticleJAMA network open2025
Screening and Response for Adverse Social Determinants of Health in US Emergency Departments.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Screening for Unmet Basic Needs in Emergency Departments: Opinions and Preferences of Adult Trauma Patients.Journal of emergency nursing · 2026Article
- Experiences of Social Risk Screening in the Safety-Net Among Patients with Mental Health Needs.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Automated Text Messages to Link Emergency Department Patients With Public Benefits Navigators.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Time for a New Whole-Person Care Pathway for Chest Pain Admissions.HCA healthcare journal of medicine · 2026Article
- Documentation of Adverse Social Drivers of Health in US Emergency Departments.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2025Article
- From Mandate to Meaning: A Health Equity Implementation Framework and Knowledge-to-Action-Informed Qualitative Study of Health-Related Social Needs Implementation.Health services insights · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Regulatory agencies have begun incentivizing screening for adverse social determinants of health (SDOH) and responses in inpatient settings, missing a crucial safety net: the emergency department (ED). Little is known about the prevalence of ED-based adverse SDOH screening and response practices nationally. Objective: To describe the prevalence of ED-based adverse SDOH screening and response policies and to identify associated hospital characteristics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study utilized a 5% random sample from the National Emergency Department Inventory-USA, including EDs stratified by geography, urbanicity, and practice setting (academic vs community). Data regarding 2022 policies were collected in 2023. Exposures: Practice setting, urbanicity, visit volume, and availability of social work. Main Outcomes and Measures: The presence of written policies for any adverse SDOH (housing, food, transportation, and utility payment difficulties) screening and responses, as well as other requirement-driven screening for SDOH risk factors (intimate partner violence, substance use, and mental health conditions). Responses were categorized as consultations (eg, social work), standardized information sheets, individualized resource information, or other. Results: Of a total of 280 EDs, 232 responded (83% response rate). Among 232 EDs, 28.4% (survey-weighted proportion; 95% CI, 21.0%-37.2%) had screening policies for at least 1 adverse SDOH domain, and 93.1% (95% CI, 89.2%-95.7%) performed at least 1 other requirement-driven screening (eg, intimate partner violence). Of EDs performing any screening (adverse SDOH or other), 81.6% (95% CI, 73.4%-87.7%) had response policies, primarily involving consultations (78.2%; 95% CI, 67.2%-86.3%), standardized information sheets (43.0%; 95% CI, 32.5%-54.3%), and individualized resource information (12.9%; 95% CI, 7.2%-21.8%). Among all responding EDs, only 23.4% (95% CI, 17.1%-31.2%) had around-the-clock social work availability, and 20.5% (95% CI, 14.2%-28.6%) had an ED-based social worker. There was no association between practice setting, urbanicity, visit volume, or around-the-clock social work with adverse SDOH screening or response policies. Conclusions and Relevance: Despite the high prevalence of adverse SDOH in ED populations, in this survey study of 232 EDs, less than one-third performed screening, and one-fifth did not have policies requiring a response to positive screens. Bridging this gap may require expanding adverse SDOH screening practices while also ensuring that EDs have the resources and infrastructure to respond appropriately to identified social needs. Future research might explore advanced technological solutions to enhance screening and responses in these resource-constrained settings.
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.