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

被引:13
|
作者
Karran, Emma L. [1 ]
Cashin, Aidan G. [2 ,3 ]
Barker, Trevor [1 ]
Boyd, Mark A. [4 ,5 ]
Chiarotto, Alessandro [6 ]
Dewidar, Omar [7 ]
Petkovic, Jennifer [7 ]
Sharma, Saurab [2 ,3 ]
Tugwell, Peter [8 ,9 ]
Moseley, G. Lorimer [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ South Australia, IIMPACT Hlth, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[2] Neurosci Res Australia, Ctr Pain IMPACT, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[3] Univ New South Wales, Sch Hlth & Med Sci, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[4] Univ Adelaide, Fac Hlth & Med Sci, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[5] Northern Adelaide Local Hlth Network, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[6] Erasmus Univ, Dept Gen Practice, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[7] Univ Ottawa, Bruyere Res Inst, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[8] Univ Ottawa, Dept Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[9] Univ Ottawa, Sch Epidemiol, Ottawa, ON, Canada
来源
PEERJ | 2023年 / 11卷
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Social determinants of health; Social needs; Screening tools; Scoping review; Public health; Primary care; DETERMINANTS; RISK; INTERVENTION;
D O I
10.7717/peerj.15263
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页数:19
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Stakeholder perspectives on social screening in US healthcare settings
    Aceves, Benjamin
    De Marchis, Emilia
    Loomba, Vishalli
    Brown, Erika M. M.
    Gottlieb, Laura M. M.
    BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [32] Review of social networks of professionals in healthcare settings—where are we and what else is needed?
    Huajie Hu
    Yu Yang
    Chi Zhang
    Cong Huang
    Xiaodong Guan
    Luwen Shi
    Globalization and Health, 17
  • [33] THE DISASTER INFORMATION NEEDS OF FAMILIES OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL HEALTHCARE NEEDS: A SCOPING REVIEW
    Hipper, Thomas J.
    Davis, Renee
    Massey, Philip M.
    Turchi, Renee M.
    Lubell, Keri M.
    Pechta, Laura E.
    Rose, Dale A.
    Wolkin, Amy
    Briseno, Lisa
    Franks, Jessica L.
    Chernak, Esther
    HEALTH SECURITY, 2018, 16 (03) : 178 - 192
  • [34] What is known about the role of external facilitators during the implementation of complex interventions in healthcare settings? A scoping review
    Girard, Ariane
    Doucet, Amelie
    Lambert, Mireille
    Ouadfel, Sarah
    Caron, Geneve
    Hudon, Catherine
    BMJ OPEN, 2024, 14 (06): : 1 - 8
  • [35] Implementing Anti-Racism Interventions in Healthcare Settings: A Scoping Review
    Hassen, Nadha
    Lofters, Aisha
    Michael, Sinit
    Mall, Amita
    Pinto, Andrew D.
    Rackal, Julia
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2021, 18 (06) : 1 - 15
  • [36] Scoping review of balanced scorecards for use in healthcare settings: development and implementation
    Bohm, Victoria
    Lacaille, Diane
    Spencer, Nicole
    Barber, Claire E. H.
    BMJ OPEN QUALITY, 2021, 10 (03)
  • [37] Workplace Violence in Healthcare Settings: A Scoping Review of Guidelines and Systematic Reviews
    Fricke, Julie
    Siddique, Shazia Mehmood
    Douma, Caryn
    Ladak, Alicia
    Burchill, Christian N.
    Greysen, Ryan
    Mull, Nikhil K.
    TRAUMA VIOLENCE & ABUSE, 2023, 24 (05) : 3363 - 3383
  • [38] Sex and Gender in Research on Healthcare Workers in Conflict Settings: A Scoping Review
    Habib, Rima R.
    Halwani, Dana A.
    Mikati, Diana
    Hneiny, Layal
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2020, 17 (12) : 1 - 22
  • [39] JUST CULTURE IN HEALTHCARE SETTINGS: A SCOPING REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION PRACTICES AND OUTCOMES
    McKay, C.
    Truong, B.
    Innes, S.
    Hope, J.
    AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 2024, 58 : 181 - 181
  • [40] Review of social networks of professionals in healthcare settings-where are we and what else is needed?
    Hu, Huajie
    Yang, Yu
    Zhang, Chi
    Huang, Cong
    Guan, Xiaodong
    Shi, Luwen
    GLOBALIZATION AND HEALTH, 2021, 17 (01)