Cargando…
Stakeholder perspectives on social screening in US healthcare settings
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10012605/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36915136 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09214-z |
_version_ | 1784906636119244800 |
---|---|
author | Aceves, Benjamín De Marchis, Emilia Loomba, Vishalli Brown, Erika M. Gottlieb, Laura M. |
author_facet | Aceves, Benjamín De Marchis, Emilia Loomba, Vishalli Brown, Erika M. Gottlieb, Laura M. |
author_sort | Aceves, Benjamín |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-023-09214-z. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10012605 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100126052023-03-15 Stakeholder perspectives on social screening in US healthcare settings Aceves, Benjamín De Marchis, Emilia Loomba, Vishalli Brown, Erika M. Gottlieb, Laura M. BMC Health Serv Res Research 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-023-09214-z. BioMed Central 2023-03-13 /pmc/articles/PMC10012605/ /pubmed/36915136 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09214-z Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Aceves, Benjamín De Marchis, Emilia Loomba, Vishalli Brown, Erika M. Gottlieb, Laura M. Stakeholder perspectives on social screening in US healthcare settings |
title | Stakeholder perspectives on social screening in US healthcare settings |
title_full | Stakeholder perspectives on social screening in US healthcare settings |
title_fullStr | Stakeholder perspectives on social screening in US healthcare settings |
title_full_unstemmed | Stakeholder perspectives on social screening in US healthcare settings |
title_short | Stakeholder perspectives on social screening in US healthcare settings |
title_sort | stakeholder perspectives on social screening in us healthcare settings |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10012605/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36915136 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09214-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT acevesbenjamin stakeholderperspectivesonsocialscreeninginushealthcaresettings AT demarchisemilia stakeholderperspectivesonsocialscreeninginushealthcaresettings AT loombavishalli stakeholderperspectivesonsocialscreeninginushealthcaresettings AT brownerikam stakeholderperspectivesonsocialscreeninginushealthcaresettings AT gottlieblauram stakeholderperspectivesonsocialscreeninginushealthcaresettings |