ArticleThe American journal of managed care2025
Performance of 2-stage health-related social needs screening using area-level measures.
Article in The American journal of managed care, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesScreening for health-related social needs (HRSNs) has increased in importance, but screening large patient populations comes with a cost and potential burden for care delivery organizations. This study evaluated the performance of 2-stage HRSN screening that used residence in a high-poverty area to determine which patients were administered screening questions. STUDY
designScreening evaluation.
methodsAdult primary care patients in Indiana and Florida completed HRSN screening questions included in an electronic health record (EHR) system and a set of additional questionnaires that served as the gold standard for assessing HRSN presence. Responses were linked to patients' residential zip code (n = 1351). The first stage of screening applied residence in a high-poverty zip code, and the second stage was the EHR-based HRSN screening questions. Using the response to the gold-standard questions, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the curve (AUC) for each HRSN.
resultsThe highest AUC value was for food insecurity (80%), which was largely driven by the strong performance of the EHR-based HRSN screening questions. The remaining HRSNs had lower AUC values, which were driven by the overall low sensitivities of the screening questions and the overall low performance of the first-stage area-level screen. Positive predictive values were high.
conclusionsTwo-stage HRSN screening based on geography is suboptimal. Although a 2-stage approach based on area-level socioeconomic measures can reduce the number of patients requiring individual-level HRSN screening, large percentages of patients in need would go unidentified.
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.