Search

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.

Background Although it is broadly accepted that clinicians should endeavour to reassure patients with low back pain, to do so can present a significant clinical challenge. Guidance for how to provide effective reassurance is scarce and there may be a need to counter patient concerns arising from misinterpretation of spinal imaging findings. ‘GLITtER’ (Green Light Imaging Intervention to Enhance Recovery) was developed as a standardised method of communicating imaging findings in a manner that is reassuring and promotes engagement in an active recovery. This feasibility study is an important step towards definitive testing of its effect. Methods This feasibility study was a prospective, quasi-randomised, parallel trial with longitudinal follow-up, involving sampling of patients attending a spinal outpatient clinic at a metropolitan hospital. English speaking adults (18–75 years) presenting to the clinic with low back pain and prior spinal imaging were considered for inclusion. Eligible patients were allocated to receive a GLITtER consultation or a standard consultation (as determined by appointment scheduling and clinician availability), and were blinded to their allocation. Full details of the GLITtER intervention are described in accordance with the Tidier template.Follow-up data were collected after 1 and 3 months. The primary outcome of this study was the fulfillment of specific feasibility criteria which were established a priori. Determination of a sample size for a definitive randomised controlled trial was a secondary objective. Results Two hundred seventy-six patients underwent preliminary screening and 31 patients met the final eligibility criteria for study inclusion. Seventeen participants were allocated to the intervention group and 14 were allocated to the control group. Three month follow-up data were available from 42% of the 31 enrolled participants (N = 13, six intervention, seven control). Feasibility indicators for consent, resource burden and acceptability of the GLITtER intervention were met, however participant recruitment was slower than anticipated and an acceptable follow-up rate was not achieved. Conclusions Failure to achieve pre-specified recruitment and follow-up rates were important outcomes of this feasibility study. We attribute failure to issues that are likely to be relevant for other clinical trials with this population. It is realistic to consider that these challenges can be overcome through careful strategy, ample funding and continued partnership with health care providers. Trial registration The trial was registered on the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on 28/2/2017 (ACTRN12617000317392).

Background Low back pain clinical practice guidelines consistently recommend against the routine ordering of spinal imaging; however, imaging is frequently requested in primary care, without evidence of benefit. Imaging reports frequently identify degenerative features which are likely to be interpreted as ‘abnormal’, despite their high prevalence in symptom-free individuals. The aim of this study was to investigate whether post-imaging back-related perceptions are influenced by providing prior information about normal findings, and to compare the effect of receiving imaging results with best practice care (without imaging). The impact of introducing novel, ‘enhanced’ reporting strategies was also explored. Methods This study was a simulated-patient, randomised, multiple-arm experiment. Patient scenarios were presented to volunteer healthy adult participants via an online survey. In the scenarios, ‘virtual’ patients with low back pain were randomised to one of three groups. Group 1 received imaging and was pre-informed about normal findings. Group 2 received imaging (without pre-information). Group 3 received best practice care: quality information without imaging. Group 1 was further divided to receive either a standard report, or an ‘enhanced’ report (containing altered terminology and epidemiological information). The primary outcome was back-related perceptions (BRP), a composite score derived from three numeric rating scale scores exploring perceptions of spinal condition, recovery concerns and planned activity. The secondary outcomes were satisfaction and kinesiophobia. Results Full data were available from 660 participants (68% female). Analysis of covariance revealed a significant effect of group after controlling for baseline BRP scores $(F(2,74)=10.4,p\lt 0.001,{\eta }_{p}^{2}=.04)$ F 2 , 74 = 10 . 4 , p < 0 . 001 , η p 2 = . 04 . Pairwise comparisons indicated that receiving best practice care resulted in more positive BRPs than receiving imaging results, and receiving prior information about normal findings had no impact. Enhanced reporting strategies also positively impacted BRPs $(F(1,275)=13.06,p\lt 0.001,{\eta }_{p}^{2}=.05)$ F 1 , 275 = 13 . 06 , p < 0 . 001 , η p 2 = . 05 . Significant relationships between group allocation and both satisfaction $(F(2,553)=7.5,p=0.001,{\eta }_{p}^{2}=.03)$ F 2 , 553 = 7 . 5 , p = 0 . 001 , η p 2 = . 03 and kinaesiophobia $(F(2,553)=3.0,p=0.050,{\eta }_{p}^{2}=.01)$ F 2 , 553 = 3 . 0 , p = 0 . 050 , η p 2 = . 01 were found, with statistically significant pairwise comparisions again in favour of best-practice care. Conclusion Intervention strategies such as enhanced reporting methods and the provision of quality information (without imaging) have the potential to improve the outcome of patients with recent-onset LBP and should be further considered by primary care providers.