ArticleAcademic pediatrics2026
Food Insecurity Screening and Intervention Strategies in Pediatric Primary Care Practices: A Mixed Methods Study.
Article in Academic pediatrics, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePediatric clinics identify and address food insecurity (FI), but processes vary nationwide. State and federal policies increasingly require FI screening in health care settings and as a quality metric in payment models. A better understanding of existing practices and opportunities for efficient and effective clinical integration is needed.
methodsA multiple-choice survey was first completed with 27 clinics nationwide. Semistructured interviews informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research were then conducted with clinics (n = 25) to explore current FI practices and understand how policies and payment models could support FI processes. Descriptive analysis was used for survey results. Rapid qualitative analysis was used to identify themes.
resultsPediatric practices were predominately in the South (44%) and in urban (70%) locations. Most used the Hunger Vital Sign to screen (89%); interventions included resource list distribution (89%), referral to federal nutrition programs (78%), and/or community-based organizations (78%). Few practices coded (37%) or billed (7%) for FI. Three overarching themes were identified as follows: 1) FI screening, intervention, and documentation processes varied across primary care clinics; 2) Multilevel barriers hindered efforts to address FI; and 3) Policy and payment reforms are needed to support the integration of FI screening and intervention in health systems and effectively assist families experiencing FI.
conclusionsWhile clinics have integrated FI screening and interventions, streamlined documentation and billing remain limited. As FI screening becomes increasingly incentivized, designing performance metrics that include health care provider input and address existing barriers should be a priority.
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.