Author:
Aceves Benjamín,De Marchis Emilia,Loomba Vishalli,Brown Erika M.,Gottlieb Laura M.
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Evidence on the health impacts of social conditions has led US healthcare systems to consider identifying and addressing social adversity—e.g. food, housing, and transportation insecurity—in care delivery settings. Social screening is one strategy being used to gather patient information about social circumstances at the point of care. While several recent studies describe the rapid proliferation of social screening activities, little work has explored either why or how to implement social screening in clinical settings. Our study objectives were to assess diverse healthcare stakeholder perspectives on both the rationale for social screening and evidence needed to inform practice and policy-relevant implementation decisions.
Methods
We convened five focus groups with US experts representing different stakeholder groups: patient advocates, community-based organizations, healthcare professionals, payers, and policymakers. In total, 39 experts participated in approximately 90-minute long focus groups conducted between January-March 2021. A inductive thematic analysis approach was used to analyze discussions.
Results
Three themes emerged from focus groups, each reflecting the tension between the national enthusiasm for screening and existing evidence on the effectiveness and implementation of screening in clinical settings: (1) ambiguity about the rationale for social screening; (2) concerns about the relavence of screening tools and approaches, particularly for historically marginalized populations; (3) lack of clarity around the resources needed for implementation and scaling.
Conclusion
While participants across groups described potential benefits of social screening, they also highlighted knowledge gaps that interfered with realizing these benefits. Efforts to minimize and ideally resolve these knowledge gaps will advance future social screening practice and policy.
Funder
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference37 articles.
1. National Academies of Science., Engineering, and Medicine. Moving medicine upstream: Integrating social needs care into the delivery of healthcare. Washington, DC. 2019.
2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The accountable health communities health-related social needs screening tool. https://innovation.cms.gov/files/worksheets/ahcm-screeningtool.pdf. Published 2018. Accessed October 4, 2021.
3. National Association of Community Health Centers. Protocol for responding to and assessing patients assets, risks, and experiences (PRAPARE). https://www.nachc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/PRAPARE-One-Pager-9-2-16-with-logo-and-trademark.pdf. Published 2016. Accessed October 1, 2021.
4. Davidson KW, Krist AH, Tseng C et al. Incorporation of social risk in US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations and identification of key challenges for primary care. JAMA. 2021;326(14):1410-1415. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.12833. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34468692.
5. Eder M, Henninger M, Durbin S, et al. Screening and interventions for social risk factors: technical brief to support the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2021;326(14):1416-1428. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.12825. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34468710.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献