ArticleJournal of emergency nursing2026
Screening for Unmet Basic Needs in Emergency Departments: Opinions and Preferences of Adult Trauma Patients.
Article in Journal of emergency nursing, 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.
- Screening for Unmet Basic Needs in Emergency Departments: Opinions and Preferences of Adult Trauma Patients.Journal of emergency nursing · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionUnmet basic needs exacerbate the negative impact that traumatic injuries have on patients' quality of life. Although basic needs screenings may improve outcomes in emergency departments, it is unknown how patients perceive non-medical questioning in this setting. Knowing patients' screening perceptions can ensure that resources devoted to addressing social issues have a maximum positive impact. We investigated patients' basic needs screening impressions and administration preferences in the emergency department.
methodsIn an observational, cross-sectional study, adults with a traumatic injury completed a basic needs screening during their emergency department encounter (N = 220; 51% female; mean [SD] age = 48.86 [19.18]). Participants answered questions regarding screening impressions, with whom they would like to administer the screening, and the context in which they would most likely complete the screening. Participant preferences were summarized using frequencies and percentages. Friedman tests for 2-way analysis of variance by ranks were used to examine differences among administration preferences. Demographic differences in preferences were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis tests and Spearman correlations.
resultsParticipants reported favorable impressions of basic needs screenings (agreement ranged from 80%-92%). Participants preferred completing the survey electronically (59%) rather than on paper (10%). They preferred being screened alone (88% agreement) or by clinical staff (eg, nurse, doctor, or social worker; 80%-82% agreement) rather than by non-clinical staff (60% agreement). No systematic demographic differences were found across impressions and administration preferences. DISCUSSION: Positive patient perceptions of basic needs screening support developing screening programs in the emergency department to offer holistic, patient-centered care, whereas preference data are useful for shaping efficient, acceptable screening methods.
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.