ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2025
Documentation of Adverse Social Drivers of Health in US Emergency Departments.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians 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.
- Experiences of Social Risk Screening in the Safety-Net Among Patients with Mental Health Needs.Journal of general internal medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to characterize emergency department (ED)-based policies related to documentation of adverse social drivers of health (aSDOH) among a national sample of US EDs. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of ED leaders from a 5% stratified random sample of US EDs ( Results: Of 232 responding EDs (83% response rate), 213 (93.2%, 95% CI, 89.3-95.7) reported screening for at least 1 risk factor. Among these, 196 (93.8%, 95% CI, 87.9-96.9) had policies requiring documentation of positive screens. Documentation requirements were higher for regulatory requirement-driven screening (84-93.5) compared with core aSDOH screening (56.8-68.9). Clinical providers most commonly documented findings (97.8%, 95% CI, 94.8-99.1), followed by social workers/care coordinators (52.6%, 95% CI, 42.4-62.6). All documentation occurred in the electronic health record. In adjusted analyses, 24/7 social work availability was associated with greater odds of having at least 1 aSDOH documentation policy (odds ratio, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.09-7.52). Conclusion: Although most EDs with screening policies required documentation of positive screens, requirements varied by domain. Future research should focus on standardizing documentation practices and developing systems to effectively translate documented social needs into meaningful interventions.
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.