The ‘what’ and ‘how’ of screening for social needs in healthcare settings: a scoping review

Author:

Karran Emma L.1,G. Cashin Aidan23,Barker Trevor1,A. Boyd Mark45,Chiarotto Alessandro6,Dewidar Omar7,Petkovic Jennifer7,Sharma Saurab23ORCID,Tugwell Peter8,Moseley G. Lorimer1ORCID,

Affiliation:

1. IIMPACT in Health, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

2. Centre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

3. School of Health and Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

4. Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

5. Northern Adelaide Local Health Network, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

6. Department of General Practice, Erasmus University/Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands

7. Bruyere Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

8. Department of Medicine and School of Epidemiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

Abstract

Background Adverse social determinants of health give rise to individual-level social needs that have the potential to negatively impact health. Screening patients to identify unmet social needs is becoming more widespread. A review of the content of currently available screening tools is warranted. The aim of this scoping review was to determine what social needs categories are included in published Social Needs Screening Tools that have been developed for use in primary care settings, and how these social needs are screened. Methods We pre-registered the study on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/dqan2/). We searched MEDLINE and Embase from 01/01/2010 to 3/05/2022 to identify eligible studies reporting tools designed for use in primary healthcare settings. Two reviewers independently screened studies, a single reviewer extracted data. We summarised the characteristics of included studies descriptively and calculated the number of studies that collected data relevant to specific social needs categories. We identified sub-categories to classify the types of questions relevant to each of the main categories. Results We identified 420 unique citations, and 27 were included. Nine additional studies were retrieved by searching for tools that were used or referred to in excluded studies. Questions relating to food insecurity and the physical environment in which a person lives were the most frequently included items (92–94% of tools), followed by questions relating to economic stability and aspects of social and community context (81%). Seventy-five percent of the screening tools included items that evaluated five or more social needs categories (mean 6.5; standard deviation 1.75). One study reported that the tool had been ‘validated’; 16 reported ‘partial’ validation; 12 reported that the tool was ‘not validated’ and seven studies did not report validation processes or outcomes.

Funder

Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Leadership Investigator

Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Emerging Leadership Investigator

International Association for the Study of Pain

Canada Research Chair Program

Publisher

PeerJ

Subject

General Agricultural and Biological Sciences,General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology,General Medicine,General Neuroscience

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3