ArticleSSM. Qualitative research in health2025
"The start of something that I hope could be greater": Health information technology tools for social care.
Article in SSM. Qualitative research in health, 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.
- Social Risk-Informed Decision Support and Blood Pressure Control in a Primary Care Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.Annals of family medicine · 2026Trial
- Qualitative Study to Inform Social Context-Informed Treatment of Children With Obesity.Academic pediatricsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Federal policies and professional guidelines in the United States increasingly encourage and incentivize health systems to collect and meaningfully respond to patients' social risks. In response, many health systems employ health information technology to implement, standardize, and scale these social care activities. We created and evaluated electronic health record tools to support the collection and documentation of social risk information, and the integration of this information into clinical decision-making; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine labels these activities Awareness and Adjustment. Our realist-informed evaluation explored how, why, and for whom the tools did/did not support the use of social risk information in care planning in community health centers. The five-year study was completed in 2024. The dataset consisted of 41 meeting observations, 36 clinician and staff interviews, and regular team discussions regarding tool use at participating clinics. Analysis involved cyclical data querying to identify mechanisms underlying tool (non) acceptance and (non)use. Findings highlighted the importance of aligning technology to the values underlying professional identity - in this case, the value assigned to patient-centered care. Clinicians and staff perceived that Awareness tools enhanced their ability to provide patient-centered care, which led to increased uptake. In contrast, participants often felt that the Adjustment tools superseded clinician autonomy, failed to support direct patient care, and disrupted patient-clinician relationships contributing to low motivation for use. These results may be specific to the ways in which clinicians serving low-income communities conceptualize their role in social-medical integration; similar work should be undertaken in other healthcare 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.