ArticleAcademic pediatrics
Social Needs Screening and Uptake Patterns of a Produce Prescription Program in an Urban Pediatric Primary Care Clinic.
Article in Academic pediatrics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe WE CARE social needs screener (WC screener) is a self-report instrument for 8 social needs. Our objective was to determine whether screening positive for wanting help with food is associated with increased odds of enrollment in Fresh Connect (FC), a produce prescription program.
methodsFamilies who completed the WC screener at a well-child visit (n=1049) and spoke English, Spanish, or Portuguese were called within 2 weeks and offered FC regardless of screener results. Child age, race and ethnicity, caregiver's preferred language, and insurance were extracted from medical records. A multivariable adjusted logistic regression model was utilized to describe the association between WC responses and likelihood of enrolling in FC.
resultsOverall, 38% of the children were of non-Hispanic White race and ethnicity; 97% of caregivers spoke English, and 52% utilized public insurance. Among caregivers who completed the WC screener, 6% requested help with food. Overall, 20% enrolled in FC. Compared to those who said "no," saying "yes" to wanting help with food did not increase odds of FC enrollment after adjusting for other variables (adjusted odds ratios [aOR] 0.93, 0.44-1.97), yet saying "maybe later" did (aOR 3.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-8.3). Additionally, combining "yes" and "maybe later" also did not have significantly higher odds of enrollment compared to those who said no or left the question blank (aOR 1.46, 95% CI 0.86-2.46).
conclusionsThis pilot study is the first to explore the concordance between screening responses and produce prescription enrollment. Responding "yes" to wanting help with food on the WC screener was not predictive of FC enrollment, which suggests that future primary care-based interventions should evaluate the role of social needs screeners in the referral pathway and consider, when possible, offering food-related assistance to all families regardless of screening responses.
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.