Search

Cancer treatment can trigger or exacerbate health-related socioeconomic risks (HRSR; food/housing insecurity, transportation/utilities difficulties, and interpersonal violence). The American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute recommend HRSR screening and referral, but little research has examined the perceptions of patients with cancer on the appropriateness of HRSR screening in healthcare settings. We examined whether HRSR status, desire for assistance with HRSRs, and sociodemographic and health care-related factors were associated with perceived appropriateness of HRSR screening in health care settings and comfort with HRSR documentation in electronic health records (EHR). A convenience sample of adult patients with cancer at two outpatient clinics completed self-administered surveys. We used χ 2 and Fisher exact tests to test for significant associations. The sample included 154 patients (72% female, 90% ages 45 years or older). Thirty-six percent reported ≥1 HRSRs and 27% desired assistance with HRSRs. Overall, 80% thought it was appropriate to assess for HRSRs in health care settings. The distributions of HRSR status and sociodemographic characteristics were similar among people who perceived screening to be appropriate and those who did not. Participants who perceived screening as appropriate were three times as likely to report prior experience with HRSR screening (31% vs. 10%, P = 0.01). Moreover, 60% felt comfortable having HRSRs documented in the EHR. Comfort with EHR documentation of HRSRs was significantly higher among patients desiring assistance with HRSRs (78%) compared with those who did not (53%, P < 0.01). While initiatives for HRSR screening are likely to be seen by patients with cancer as appropriate, concerns may remain over electronic documentation of HRSRs.SignificanceNational organizations recommend addressing HRSRs such as food/housing insecurity, transportation/utilities difficulties, and interpersonal violence among patients with cancer. In our study, most patients with cancer perceived screening for HRSRs in clinical settings as appropriate. Meanwhile, concerns may remain over the documentation of HRSRs in EHRs.

Abundant evidence demonstrates that enduring, endemic racism plays an important role in determining patient health. This commentary reviews a patient case about disease self-management and subsequent health outcomes that are shaped by social and economic circumstances. We analyze the case using a framework for social care developed in 2019 by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). We then propose that the NASEM framework be adapted by adding the category abolition, which could make the other social care practices transformative for historically marginalized populations.

IntroductionScreening for interpersonal violence is used in healthcare settings to identify patients experiencing violence. However, using unvalidated screening tools may misclassify patients' experience with violence. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation adapted a previously validated intimate partner violence screening tool for use in assessing interpersonal violence and retained the tool's original scoring rubric, despite the new tool's broader scope. This study evaluates the scoring system for detecting safety concerns.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of adult patients and caregivers of pediatric patients at 7 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments (2018-2019). Surveys included the adapted 4-item Hurt Insult Threat Scream tool. Questions are scored by frequency on a Likert scale (1=never; 5=frequently). Scores of 11-20 are considered positive for safety concerns. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for descriptive analyses. Data analyses occurred in 2019-2020.ResultsOf 1,014 participants, 66 (6.5%) reported any frequency of physical violence. Of these, 54 (81.8%) did not reach the threshold score of 11. Of the 1,014 participants, 93 (9.2%) reported any frequency of physical violence or being threatened with harm; 76 of 93 participants (81.7%) scored 80% of participants reporting physical violence did not screen positive for potential safety concerns. The scoring criteria did not reliably identify participants experiencing or at high risk for violence. To improve patient safety, the adapted Hurt Insult Threat Scream scoring rubric should be updated on the basis of stakeholder input and additional validation studies.

BackgroundSocial isolation is a known predictor of mortality that disproportionately affects vulnerable populations in the USA. Although experts began to recognize it as a public health crisis prior to 2020, the novel coronavirus pandemic has accelerated recognition of social isolation as a serious threat to health and well-being.ObjectiveExamine patient experiences with screening and assistance for social isolation in primary care settings, and whether patient experiences with these activities are associated with the severity of reported social isolation.DesignCross-sectional survey conducted in 2018.ParticipantsAdults (N = 251) were recruited from 3 primary care clinics in Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco.Main measuresA modified version of the Berkman-Syme Social Network Index (SNI), endorsed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; items to assess for prior experiences with screening and assistance for social isolation.Key resultsIn the sample population, 12.4% reported the highest levels of social isolation (SNI = 0/1), compared to 36.7%, 34.7%, and 16.3% (SNI = 2-4, respectively). Most patients had not been asked about social isolation in a healthcare setting (87.3%), despite reporting no discomfort with social isolation screening (93.9%). Neither discomfort with nor participation in prior screening for social isolation was associated with social isolation levels. Desire for assistance with social isolation (3.2%) was associated with a higher level of social isolation (AOR = 6.0, 95% CI, 1.3-28.8), as well as poor or fair health status (AOR = 9.1; 95% CI, 1.3-64.1).ConclusionsIn this study, few patients reported being screened previously for social isolation in a primary care setting, despite low levels of discomfort with screening. Providers should consider broadening social isolation screening and referral practices in healthcare settings, especially among sicker and more isolated patients who express higher levels of interest in assistance with social isolation.

PURPOSE Family and friends who provide regular care for a sick or dependent individual ('caregivers') are at increased risk of health-related socioeconomic vulnerabilities (HRSVs). This study examined pre-pandemic prevalence of and early pandemic changes in HRSVs among women caregivers compared with non-caregivers. METHODS A cross-sectional survey was conducted in April 2020 (early pandemic) with 3,200 English-speaking US women aged 18 years or older, 30% of whom identified as caregivers. We modeled adjusted odds of self-reported HRSVs (financial strain, food/ housing insecurity, interpersonal violence, transportation/utilities difficulties) before and changes during the early pandemic by caregiving status. Models were adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, income, number of people in household, number of children in household, physical and mental health, and number of comorbidities. RESULTS Pre-pandemic, 63% of caregivers and 47% of non-caregivers reported 1 or more vulnerability (P CONCLUSION The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic increased risk of incident and worsening HRSVs for caregivers more than for non-caregivers. COVID-19 response and recovery efforts should target caregivers to reduce modifiable HRSVs and promote the health of caregivers and those who depend on them. Key words: caregivers; COVID-19 pandemic; food insecurity; social determinants of health; social care, INTRODUCTION Throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, family and friend caregivers have played an especially critical role in ensuring the health and well-being of a substantial population of chronically [...]

IntroductionThis study aimed to better understand patient and caregiver perspectives on social risk screening across different healthcare settings.MethodsAs part of a mixed-methods multisite study, the authors conducted semistructured interviews with a subset of adult patients and adult caregivers of pediatric patients who had completed the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Accountable Health Communities social risk screening tool between July 2018 and February 2019. Interviews, conducted in English or Spanish, asked about reactions to screening, screening acceptability, preferences for administration, prior screening experiences that informed perspectives, and expectations for social assistance. Basic thematic analysis and constant comparative methods were used to code and develop themes.ResultsFifty interviews were conducted across 10 study sites in 9 states, including 6 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments. There was broad consensus among interviewees across all sites that social risk screening was acceptable. The following 4 main themes emerged: (1) participants believed screening for social risks is important; (2) participants expressed insight into the connections between social risks and overall health; (3) participants emphasized the importance of patient-centered implementation of social risk screening; and (4) participants recognized limits to the healthcare sector's capacity to address or resolve social risks.ConclusionsDespite gaps in the availability of social risk-related interventions in healthcare settings, patient-centered social risk screening, including empathy and attention to privacy, may strengthen relationships between patients and healthcare teams.Supplement informationThis article is part of a supplement entitled Identifying and Intervening on Social Needs in Clinical Settings: Evidence and Evidence Gaps, which is sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kaiser Permanente, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

INTRODUCTION:Despite recent growth in healthcare delivery-based social risk screening, little is known about patient perspectives on these activities. This study evaluates patient and caregiver acceptability of social risk screening. METHODS:This was a cross-sectional survey of 969 adult patients and adult caregivers of pediatric patients recruited from 6 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments across 9 states. Survey items included the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Accountable Health Communities' social risk screening tool and questions about appropriateness of screening and comfort with including social risk data in electronic health records. Logistic regressions evaluated covariate associations with acceptability measures. Data collection occurred from July 2018 to February 2019; data analyses were conducted in February‒March 2019. RESULTS:Screening was reported as appropriate by 79% of participants; 65% reported comfort including social risks in electronic health records. In adjusted models, higher perceived screening appropriateness was associated with previous exposure to healthcare-based social risk screening (AOR=1.82, 95% CI=1.16, 2.88), trust in clinicians (AOR=1.55, 95% CI=1.00, 2.40), and recruitment from a primary care setting (AOR=1.70, 95% CI=1.23, 2.38). Lower appropriateness was associated with previous experience of healthcare discrimination (AOR=0.66, 95% CI=0.45, 0.95). Higher comfort with electronic health record documentation was associated with previously receiving assistance with social risks in a healthcare setting (AOR=1.47, 95% CI=1.04, 2.07). CONCLUSIONS:A strong majority of adult patients and caregivers of pediatric patients reported that social risk screening was appropriate. Most also felt comfortable including social risk data in electronic health records. Although multiple factors influenced acceptability, the effects were moderate to small. These findings suggest that lack of patient acceptability is unlikely to be a major implementation barrier. SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION:This article is part of a supplement entitled Identifying and Intervening on Social Needs in Clinical Settings: Evidence and Evidence Gaps, which is sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kaiser Permanente, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

PURPOSE Describe primary care practices' implementation of CommunityRx-H3, a community resource referral intervention that utilized practice facilitators to support cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention quality improvement. METHODS Qualitative focus groups were conducted with practice facilitators to elicit perceptions of practices' experiences with CommunityRx-H3, practice-level factors affecting, and practice facilitator strategies to promote implementation. Qualitative data were analyzed using directed content analysis. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was applied deductively to organize and interpret findings. RESULTS Fourteen of all 19 practice facilitators participated. Practice facilitators perceived that staff attitudes about connecting patients to community resources for CVD were largely positive. Practices were already using a range of non-systematic strategies to refer to community resources. Practice-level factors that facilitated CommunityRx-H3 implementation included clinician 'champions,' engaged practice managers, and a practice culture that valued community resources. Implementation barriers included a practice's unwillingness to integrate the intervention into existing workflows, limited staff capacity to complete the resource inventory, and unavailability or cost of materials needed to print the resource referral list ('HealtheRx-H3'). Practice facilitator strategies to promote implementation included supporting ongoing customization of the HealtheRx-H3 and material support. Practice facilitators felt implementation would be improved by integration of CommunityRx-H3 with electronic medical record workflows and alternative methods for engaging practices in the implementation process. CONCLUSIONS Practice facilitators are increasingly being utilized by primary care practices to support quality improvement interventions and, as shown here, can also play an important role in implementation science. This study yields insights to improve implementation of community resource referral solutions to support primary care CVD prevention efforts., INTRODUCTION The Million Hearts campaign was launched in 2012 to prevent 1,000,000 heart attacks by 2017 by promoting ABCS (appropriate aspirin therapy, blood pressure control, cholesterol management and smoking cessation) [...]

Geographic racism gives rise to health inequities that impact communities in detrimental ways. Southern ethnic minority groups, particularly African American/Black semi‐rural communities, are subject to especially unjust outcomes in health, education, and wealth. Asset‐based community development (ABCD) is a way of engaging with communities in participatory and positive ways that center community voices as expert. Youth can participate in ABCD, are sensitive to the ways in which their communities are structured, and have insights as to how to improve the places they live. We undertook a qualitative interview study which included a cognitive mapping exercise with 28 youth to understand how African American/Black youth who had participated in an ABCD‐informed summer program conceptualized community and preferences about where they lived. Using a phenomenological approach to qualitative analysis, our study revealed that many youth defined community as a combination of people and place, enjoyed engaging with unique resources in their communities as well as seeking peace and quiet, experienced hardships as "something everybody knows" when observing constraints on their communities, and were committed to their communities and interested in seeing—and participating in—their flourishing. Our study provides a nuanced and contemporary understanding of the ways in which African American/Black semi‐rural youth experience community which can contribute to cyclical asset‐based development strategy aimed at empowering young people and improving health outcomes in resilient communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]