ArticleBMJ open2025
Validation of a standardised approach to collect sociodemographic and social needs data in Canadian primary care: cross-sectional study of the SPARK tool.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Primary care provider and clinic staff perspectives on the collection of demographic and social needs data in primary care clinics across five Canadian provinces.Family medicine and community health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study validates the previously tested Screening for Poverty And Related social determinants to improve Knowledge of and access to resources ('SPARK Tool') against comparison questions from well-established national surveys (Post Survey Questionnaire (PSQ)) to inform the development of a standardised tool to collect patients' demographic and social needs data in healthcare.
designCross-sectional study.
settingPan-Canadian study of participants from four Canadian provinces (SK, MB, ON and NL).
participants192 participants were interviewed concurrently, completing both the SPARK tool and PSQ survey. MAIN OUTCOMES: Survey topics included demographics: language, immigration, race, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation; and social needs: education, income, medication access, transportation, housing, social support and employment status. Concurrent validity was performed to assess agreement and correlation between SPARK and comparison questions at an individual level as well as within domain clusters. We report on Cohen's kappa measure of inter-rater reliability, Pearson correlation coefficient and Cramer's V to assess overall capture of needs in the SPARK and PSQ as well as within each domain. Agreement between the surveys was described using correct (true positive and true negative) and incorrect (false positive and false negative) classification.
resultsThere was a moderate correlation between SPARK and PSQ (0.44, p<0.0001). SPARK correctly classified 71.4% of participants with or without a social need. There was strong agreement with most demographic questions. SPARK correctly classified 74.3% of participants as having financial insecurity. Clustering financial security questions had fewer false negatives (6.4%, n=11/171 vs 9.9%, n=17/171) and more false positives (19.3%, n=33/171 vs 11.1%, n=19/171) when compared with the question 'difficulty making ends meet'. When looking specifically at participants with high UCLA loneliness scores (>60), SPARK correctly classified 90.5% (n=176/191).
conclusionsSPARK provides a brief 15 min screening tool for primary care clinics to capture social and access needs. SPARK was able to correctly classify most participants within each domain. Related ongoing research is needed to further validate SPARK in a large representative sample and explore primary care implementation strategies to support integration.
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.