Search

ImportanceSocial needs interventions aim to improve health outcomes and mitigate inequities by addressing health-related social needs, such as lack of transportation or food insecurity. However, it is not clear whether these studies are reducing racial or ethnic inequities.ObjectiveTo understand how studies of interventions addressing social needs among multiracial or multiethnic populations conceptualize and analyze differential intervention outcomes by race or ethnicity.Evidence reviewSources included a scoping review of systematic searches of PubMed and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 1995, through November 29, 2021, expert suggestions, and hand searches of key citations. Eligible studies evaluated interventions addressing social needs; reported behavioral, health, or utilization outcomes or harms; and were conducted in multiracial or multiethnic populations. Two reviewers independently assessed titles, abstracts, and full text for inclusion. The team developed a framework to assess whether the study was "conceptually thoughtful" for understanding root causes of racial health inequities (ie, noted that race or ethnicity are markers of exposure to racism) and whether analyses were "analytically informative" for advancing racial health equity research (ie, examined differential intervention impacts by race or ethnicity).FindingsOf 152 studies conducted in multiracial or multiethnic populations, 44 studies included race or ethnicity in their analyses; of these, only 4 (9%) were conceptually thoughtful. Twenty-one studies (14%) were analytically informative. Seven of 21 analytically informative studies reported differences in outcomes by race or ethnicity, whereas 14 found no differences. Among the 7 that found differential outcomes, 4 found the interventions were associated with improved outcomes for minoritized racial or ethnic populations or reduced inequities between minoritized and White populations. No studies were powered to detect differences.Conclusions and relevanceIn this review of a scoping review, studies of social needs interventions in multiracial or multiethnic populations were rarely conceptually thoughtful for understanding root causes of racial health inequities and infrequently conducted informative analyses on intervention effectiveness by race or ethnicity. Future work should use a theoretically sound conceptualization of how race (as a proxy for racism) affects social drivers of health and use this understanding to ensure social needs interventions benefit minoritized racial and ethnic groups facing social and structural barriers to health.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive systematic review of the literature on voice-related patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in adults and to evaluate each instrument for the presence of important measurement properties. Method: MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Health and Psychosocial Instrument databases were searched using relevant vocabulary terms and key terms related to PRO measures and voice. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed in consultation with an expert panel. Three independent investigators assessed study methodology using criteria developed a priori. Measurement properties were examined and entered into evidence tables. Results: A total of 3,744 studies assessing voice-related constructs were identified. This list was narrowed to 32 PRO measures on the basis of predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Questionnaire measurement properties varied widely. Important thematic deficiencies were apparent: (a) lack of patient involvement in the item development process, (b) lack of robust construct validity, and (c) lack of clear interpretability and scaling. Conclusions: PRO measures are a principal means of evaluating treatment effectiveness in voice-related conditions. Despite their prominence, available PRO measures have disparate methodological rigor. Care must be taken to understand the psychometric and measurement properties and the applicability of PRO measures before advocating for their use in clinical or research applications.

The objectives of the review are to summarize and synthesize the available research evidence on the effects of recovery schools for improving academic success and social and emotional well-being among high-school and college students who are in recovery from substance use. The proposed review will include studies that use an experimental or quasi-experimental design. For the primary analysis, eligible studies must compare outcomes for students enrolled in recovery school programs with students enrolled in one or more comparison condition that does not involve a recovery school program. Substance use disorders among youth are problematic in every nation, and many countries have instituted treatment and recovery resources specific to adolescents and young adults. Thus, this review could highlight gaps in recovery supports and potential solutions for addressing youth recovery moving forward.

Objective: Recent American College of Rheumatology guidelines emphasise functional improvement as part of osteoarthritis (OA) management. We developed and evaluated a tool to promote provider and patient engagement in functional goal setting in OA care. Methods: We developed the Functional Goal‐setting And Self‐management Tool (FAST‐OA) with clinician input and pilot tested it in two US outpatient clinics. Baseline and end‐of‐project surveys addressed attitudes toward incorporating function into care and tool evaluation. We analysed survey data descriptively. Results: Nineteen providers and 49 patients completed surveys. At baseline, both groups endorsed the importance of functional assessment and goal setting. Providers perceived challenges to patients' ability to communicate about function. Both patients and providers highly valued the FAST‐OA to promote collaborative discussion and prioritising function. More than half of both groups agreed that they would recommend it to others. End‐of‐project results suggested changes in provider attitudes toward patients' ability to communicate functional progress. While participants valued the FAST‐OA, streamlining content may foster ongoing use. Conclusion: This pilot study illustrates the potential of a function‐focused, patient‐facing tool to introduce self‐management goal‐setting strategies into busy clinical workflow, foster the provider‐patient relationship, and encourage alignment with guidelines. These results can inform tailoring of tools for use in practice and to address needs of patients and providers optimally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]