ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Characterizing emergency clinician engagement with social drivers of health data among patients with opioid use disorder.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: To characterize emergency department (ED) clinician engagement with electronic health record (EHR)-based social drivers of health (SDOH) data; test whether engagement differs in encounters with opioid use disorder (OUD); and, among OUD encounters, assess whether engagement is associated with medications for OUD (MOUD) treatment. Materials and Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of adult ED encounters (January 2023-October 2024). OUD encounters, identified with a structured phenotype, were matched (1:2) to non-OUD encounters. Audit logs captured clinician engagement with structured SDOH questions ("SDOH Wheel"), ICD-10 Z codes in the Problem List, Social History free text, and social work notes. Engagement was any SDOH documentation or review of preexisting SDOH data during the encounter. Logistic regression estimated associations. Results: Among 17,103 encounters (5,701 OUD; 11,402 non-OUD), clinician SDOH documentation was rare (<1%). Clinicians most often reviewed Z codes (610/620; 98.4%), followed by the SDOH Wheel (1,103/3,953; 27.9%), social work notes (1,711/10,670; 16.0%), and Social History free text (232/6,942; 3.3%). Engagement occurred in 19.5% of encounters and was higher with OUD (26.6% vs 16.0%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.91, 95% CI 1.77-2.07). Among OUD encounters, engagement showed no clear association with MOUD (aOR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84-1.47), yet racial and ethnic disparities persisted. Discussion: ED clinicians infrequently document but do review structured, accessible SDOH data. Engagement is higher in OUD encounters yet shows no definitive link with MOUD, while disparities persist. Interface designs that surface SDOH and targeted EHR decision support warrant evaluation to inform equitable, time-sensitive ED care.
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.