Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41701493›Full record

Observational studyJAMA network open2026

Racial, Ethnic, and Sex Differences in Social Risks and Social Needs Concordance Among Veterans.

Lauren E Russell, David A Frank, Soumik Purkayastha, Jennifer L McCoy, Sarah M Leder, Joshua H Gordon, Shane Lamba, Gregory T Procario, Ernest M Moy, Leslie R M Hausmann

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Lauren E RussellOffice of Health Equity, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC.
David A FrankCenter for Healthcare Evaluation, Research, and Promotion, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Soumik PurkayasthaCenter for Healthcare Evaluation, Research, and Promotion, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Jennifer L McCoyCenter for Healthcare Evaluation, Research, and Promotion, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Sarah M LederOffice of Health Equity, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC.
Joshua H GordonMental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Shane LambaOffice of Health Equity, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC.
Gregory T ProcarioCenter for Healthcare Evaluation, Research, and Promotion, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Ernest M MoyOffice of Health Equity, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC.
Leslie R M HausmannCenter for Healthcare Evaluation, Research, and Promotion, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Social screening initiatives often prioritize identifying social risks before offering support. The extent to which the emphasis on social risks contribute to overscreening and/or underdetection of needs, overall and across demographic subgroups, remains underexplored. Objective: To examine the agreement between self-reported social risks and needs for support and variance in risk-need concordance across racial, ethnic, and sex subgroups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study examined responses to an online or mailed survey fielded between March 2 and May 9, 2023, to Veterans Health Administration patients who visited their primary care practitioner in January or February 2023. Survey weights were used to adjust for sampling frame and nonresponse. The data were analyzed between April 6 and December 15, 2025. Exposure: Intersection of race, ethnicity, and sex. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk-need sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and concordance across 12 domains (paying for basics, obtaining adult caregiving, obtaining childcare, finding or keeping work, paying for food, finding or keeping housing, getting transportation, accessing the internet at home, feeling isolated, feeling lonely, getting legal assistance, and getting additional education or job training) were measured using age-adjusted relative risk ratios (ARRRs) of risk-need discordance (vs concordance), controlling for a family-wise error rate of .05. Results: The analytic sample included 6596 respondents, representing 937 003 veterans after weighting (unweighted number [weighted percentage]: aged <65 years, 2992 [48.5%]; aged ≥65 years, 3604 [51.5%]; 1088 identifying as Black female [4.1%], 1140 as Black male [19.4%], 939 as Hispanic female [1.6%], 1279 as Hispanic male [11.3%], 802 as White female [5.3%], and 1348 as White male [58.4%] race or ethnicity and sex). Across domains, risk-need sensitivity ranged from 42% (95% CI, 34%-49%) for housing to 99% (95% CI, 98%-99%) for loneliness, and specificity ranged from 69% (95% CI, 66%-71%) for loneliness to 98% (95% CI, 97%-99%) for childcare. The PPV ranged from 27% (95% CI, 22%-33%) for housing to 69% (95% CI, 63%-75%) for legal issues, and NPV ranged from 93% (95% CI, 91%-94%) for housing to 99% (95% CI, 99%-99%) for both childcare and loneliness. In age-adjusted models, compared with White male veterans, Black male veterans had a significantly higher likelihood of need-without-risk discordance for paying for basics (ARRR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.80-8.64), housing (ARRR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.59-4.48), and adult caregiving (ARRR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.30-3.48). Additionally, compared with White male veterans, the likelihood of need-without-risk discordance for loneliness was higher among White female (ARRR, 14.02; 95% CI, 2.85-68.95), Hispanic female (ARRR, 10.87; 95% CI 2.31-51.25), and Hispanic male (ARRR, 8.08; 95% CI, 2.47-26.39) veterans. Differences for risk-without-need discordance were not significant. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study of Veterans Health Administration patients found that social risk questions were better at identifying veterans without a social need than those who needed support and underdetected need for support among Black male veterans. Improved survey methods are essential to accurately detect needs in diverse populations.

Indexed as

EthnicityHealth Services Needs and DemandRacial GroupsVeteransAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSex FactorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID41701493
PMCPMC12914491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.