ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Anna Louise Steeves-Reece, PhD; Melinda Marie Davis, PhD; Jean Hiebert Larson, MS; Zoe Major-McDowall, BASc; Anne Elizabeth King, MBA; Christina Nicolaidis, MD, MPH; Bruce Goldberg, MD; Dawn Michele Richardson, DrPH; Stephan Lindner, PhD
Corresponding Author: Anna Louise Steeves-Reece, PhD; Oregon Health & Science University - Portland State University School of Public Health.Email: steevesreecea@ochin.orgDOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2022.220259R1Keywords: Cross-Sectional Studies, Implementation Science, Logistic Regression, Mass Screening, Oregon, Social Determinants of Health, TelemedicineDates: Submitted: 07-27-2022; Revised: 10-28-2022; Accepted: 11-02-2022
AHEAD OF PRINT: | HTML | | PDF | FINAL PUBLICATION: | HTML | | PDF |
BACKGROUND: Social needs screening and referral interventions are increasingly common in healthcare settings, but they can be difficult to incorporate into cramped clinical workflows. While remote screening – via phone calls or text messages – offers a potentially more practical alternative to traditional in-person screening, there is a concern that screening patients remotely could adversely affect patient engagement, including their interest in accepting social needs navigation.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether screening mode modified any associations between participants’ total number of social needs and their willingness to accept social needs navigation assistance.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using a multivariable logistic regression analysis and data from the Accountable Health Communities (AHC) Model in Oregon. Participants were Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries who participated in the AHC Model from October 2018 through December 2020. The outcome variable was patients’ willingness to accept social needs navigation assistance. We included an interaction term (total number of social needs + screening mode) to test whether in-person versus remote screening was an effect modifier.
RESULTS: The study included 1,504 participants who screened positive for ≥1 social need(s), of which 43% (n=653) were screened in person and 57% (n=851) were screened remotely. Overall, 71% (n=1,069) of participants were willing to accept help with social needs. Neither the screening mode nor the interaction term (total number of social needs + screening mode) were significantly associated with a willingness to accept navigation assistance.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients presenting with a similar number of social needs, the results indicate that the type of screening mode (in-person; remote) may not adversely affect patients’ willingness to accept healthcare-based navigation for social needs.