Review ArticleClinical Review

Provider Impacts of Socioeconomic Risk Screening and Referral Programs: A Scoping Review

Andrea Quiñones-Rivera, Holly E. Wing, Jill Barr-Walker, Megan Yee, Jessica M. Harrison and Laura M. Gottlieb
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine July 2021, 34 (4) 820-831; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2021.04.210039

Abstract

Background: Initiatives to identify and intervene on patients' socioeconomic needs in the context of health care delivery are expanding. Little information has been compiled across studies on health care providers' knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors (KABB) regarding socioeconomic risk screening and referral interventions.

Methods: We conducted a systematic scoping review of providers' KABB related to health care–based socioeconomic risk screening and referral interventions using several search engines. Included studies assessed health care providers' KABB about screening and interventions conducted in clinical settings.

Results: Of 14,757 studies evaluated, 53 were eligible for inclusion. Study designs were heterogeneous. Outcome measures included attitudes and beliefs (n = 42), provider behaviors (n = 35), and provider knowledge (n = 26). The majority of providers expressed positive attitudes toward addressing patients' socioeconomic risks. Participants endorsed concerns regarding insufficient knowledge and resources, time and workflow disruption, and potential negative impacts of screening and referral programs on relationships. Exposure to screening and referral programs led to increases in providers' positive attitudes, socioeconomic risk screening rates, and reported knowledge about intervention options.

Conclusions: Participation in screening and referral programs seems to influence providers' perception of implementation barriers. Future research should explore providers' concerns about addressing identified risks.

Introduction

Strong and consistent evidence has demonstrated that social determinants of health (SDoH)—including socioeconomic factors such as food availability, transportation, income, and housing—are associated with health and well-being.1⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–12 These associations have spurred innovative clinical practices and payment models that incentivize intervening on social adversity to improve health outcomes, reduce health spending, and achieve health equity.13,14 As described in a recent National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report, these health care–based “social care” practices are diverse and include initiatives that involve detecting patients' social needs and intervening through referrals to community and government-based programs.14 Evidence is growing that these socioeconomic risk screening and referral programs (screening and referral programs) can contribute to improved health and reduced health care costs.15⇓⇓⇓–19

As the effectiveness evidence evolves, a crop of new studies has emerged exploring health care providers' perceptions of both the need for and capacity to implement screening and referral programs. Understanding the provider impacts of these activities is foundational to program implementation and sustainability and should be weighed alongside other elements of the Quadruple Aim.20 We conducted a scoping review to summarize this new body of research on health care providers' knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, and behaviors (KABB) about screening and referral programs.

Methods

This review was guided by existing methodological frameworks and reporting guidelines for scoping reviews.21⇓–23 This approach encourages researchers to broadly summarize an emerging field and identify gaps in the literature. Given the breadth of study types and in accordance with scoping review methodology, we did not assess the quality of included studies.21,22

Search Strategy

We employed a 4-step search strategy for identifying relevant studies. First, we conducted a preliminary search of PubMed to identify key articles on our topic and begin the process of term harvesting. From 20 key articles, we extracted text words and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH terms) from titles and abstracts to build a list of keywords and controlled vocabulary terms to create our search strategy. Next, we worked collaboratively with a medical librarian (JBW) to design and refine our search strategy. Potential search terms were tested by examining the unique results for each term to determine relevance to socioeconomic risks and inclusion in the search. Some concepts that were excluded in this way were violence and non-US-based studies, while concepts like literacy and social isolation were included. Third, we searched the evidence library of the University of California, San Francisco Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network (SIREN), a curated online database of social interventions research. Finally, we searched the reference lists of included articles to identify additional studies and developed search alerts for academic databases to capture similar articles.

The search strategy was developed in PubMed and adapted to other databases using controlled vocabulary (eg, MeSH, Emtree, and thesaurus terms) where available. A second librarian completed a peer review of the final search strategy using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) guidelines.24 Scoping reviews are not included in the Prospero database, and therefore this review was not registered.

The final search strategy combined 4 concepts: SDoH, health care providers, interventions, and attitudes. Boolean logic was applied by combining similar keywords and controlled vocabulary by using OR and by using AND between each concept. For example, (“social determinants” OR “food insecurity”) AND (“physician” OR “social worker”). To ensure that our search covered the range of interventions related to SDoH, we included broad search terms. No date or language limits were used in the final search. The original database search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO on January 9, 2018 and then updated on January 29, 2019. The SIREN evidence library was searched on January 29, 2019 and again June 15, 2019 using the preset filter “provider outcome.” These additional searches captured relevant articles published through June 15, 2019. The complete search strategy for all databases can be found in Appendix 1.

Study Selection

Two reviewers (MY, AQR) independently screened a random sample of 200 studies and collaboratively reviewed screening decisions to ensure inter-rater reliability. Reviewers then divided and screened studies based on title and abstract to determine if they met the inclusion criteria for full-text review. Articles that were classified as “maybe” relevant at this stage were then double-screened by the entire review team (MY, AQR, HW, JH). Final screening was completed by the same 4 reviewers. Full texts of each article were reviewed for inclusion by at least 2 authors, and discrepancies were resolved by discussion between the review team. Eligible studies described health care providers' skills, knowledge, attitudes, or behaviors around identifying or addressing patients' socioeconomic risk factors (eg, food insecurity, unstable housing, transportation, etc.) in clinical health care delivery systems. Studies evaluating screening and/or intervention activities that did not take place in a clinical setting were excluded. Studies also were excluded if they were not available in English, primary research, peer reviewed, or United States based. Studies focused on adverse childhood events, intimate partner violence, and interpersonal violence without referencing other socioeconomic risk factors were excluded.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

A standardized data extraction form was developed to catalog information on (1) study setting, (2) study type and methodology, (3) characteristics of the intervention (eg, intervention type, duration, and outcome measures), (4) study population (provider type), (5) socioeconomic risk factor focus, and (6) provider outcomes. Three reviewers (MY, AQR, JH) completed all data extraction activities. Studies fell into 2 groups: those assessing providers' KABB in the context of a screening and referral program and those outside the context of a specific program. Provider outcomes were subdivided into 3 categories: attitudes and beliefs, knowledge, and behaviors.

Results

The initial literature search yielded 19,417 articles. The search update in January 2019 contributed 2,103 additional studies. After excluding duplicates, 14,742 studies were screened for inclusion based on title and abstract. A total of 15 additional studies were identified through searches of the SIREN database. The full texts of 385 studies were assessed for eligibility, and 332 studies were eliminated based on previously established exclusion criteria. Fifty-three studies were included in the final analysis as indicated in the PRISMA chart (Figure 1). Thirty-six of the 53 studies took place in the context of a screening and referral program. These studies are referred to as intervention-related studies.25⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–60 Thirteen of the intervention-related studies included substantial provider-focused education and training components.30⇓–32,36⇓–38,42⇓⇓⇓⇓–47,57 Across the studies, providers' KABB were assessed using a diverse range of tools, including surveys, interviews, focus groups, and medical record reviews. Intervention study designs included 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs),25⇓–27 7 quasi-experimental designs with comparison groups,28⇓⇓⇓–32,43,44 and 26 quasi-experimental designs without control groups (including studies with no preintervention data, as well as studies with both preintervention and postintervention data).33⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–42,45⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–60 Seventeen studies were conducted outside the context of a specific screening and referral program and instead presented results from surveys more generally exploring providers' attitudes and behaviors about addressing patients' social needs in clinical settings. We refer to these as nonintervention studies.61⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–77 Descriptions of all included studies are available in Appendix Table 1.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram of included studies in the review. Abbreviation: PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

View this table:
Table 1.

Study Characteristics

The heterogeneity of methods, interventions, settings, targeted populations, and socioeconomic domains across the included studies limited study comparisons (see Table 1). The majority of studies explored providers' KABB related to multidomain social risk screening and referral initiatives, though some focused specifically on 1 social need, eg, food security. Thirty studies (56%) assessed KABB of physicians who had completed medical school and residency training; 21 (40%) included residents; 16 (30%) included registered nurses and/or nurse practitioners; 6 (11%) included medical students. Sample sizes ranged widely across included studies (n = 6 to n = 1298).

Both intervention and nonintervention studies assessed a range of outcomes regarding providers' KABB about integrating screening and referral programs into clinical care. Forty-nine percent included outcomes related to providers' knowledge (n = 26). Attitudes and beliefs were the most commonly reported outcomes (79%, n = 42), including measures related to the acceptability of specific interventions and perceived challenges to implementing screening and referral programs in health care delivery contexts. Providers' behaviors were described in 66% (n = 35). The range of outcomes included in the full sample of included articles is listed in Table 2.

View this table:
Table 2.

Provider Outcomes Related to Social Care Activities in Clinical Settings

Provider Knowledge

Multiple intervention-related and nonintervention studies assessed provider knowledge. Topics such as knowledge about the prevalence of social needs within the served population, impacts of social needs on health, and resources to address social needs were included.25,27,30,32,35,36,38,41⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–47,55⇓–57,59,63,64,68⇓⇓⇓–72,75 Provider level of knowledge around these topics varied. The most consistent gap in knowledge was about tools and resources needed to address socioeconomic needs once identified.43,55,56,59,64,69 One study showed that nonphysician respondents (n = 104) were more likely than physician respondents (n = 154) to be aware of relevant socioeconomic resources (64% vs 45%).75

Impact of Interventions on Provider Knowledge

The majority of studies examining the impacts of provider education and training about screening and referral programs reported improvements in provider knowledge about socioeconomic needs, including increases in knowledge about identifying and intervening on these needs in clinical care settings.27,30,43⇓⇓–46

Provider Attitudes and Beliefs

Nine nonintervention studies assessed providers' global attitudes about identifying and intervening on patients' social needs in health care contexts.61⇓–63,67⇓⇓–70,72,73 Three additional studies assessed providers' attitudes before implementation of a program/intervention.30,45,46 Across these 12 studies, the majority of respondents reported believing that patients' socioeconomic needs have significant impacts on health. Respondents endorsed “the importance of addressing social needs”61 and that knowledge about SDoH was crucial to developing effective programs for vulnerable populations.62 The majority of providers surveyed in the nonintervention studies were willing to conduct screening and reported feeling that screening for socioeconomic risks in health care settings was acceptable.62,67,69,70,72,73,75,76 Studies also reported a range of provider comfort and confidence with the practice of screening for socioeconomic risks.39,43,64,67,68

Beyond screening, the majority of respondents agreed that intervening on socioeconomic risks is also within their individual and/or collective scope of practice.43,45,59,61⇓–63,67,70,73,75 Three studies found significant positive associations between a clinical setting's ability to address patients' socioeconomic risks and providers' job satisfaction and perceptions of health care quality.61,65,77 In 12 of 15 studies assessing postintervention-only attitudes after program exposure, the majority of providers endorsed positive attitudes about the specific intervention in which they participated or screening and referral programs generally.33,35,37,38,48⇓⇓⇓⇓–53,56,58 Measures reflecting attitudes included topics such as acceptability of screening, process measures (eg, compatibility with clinic flow, screening ease), effect of the program on patient care, and provider satisfaction with the program. Providers in 2 post-only studies primarily expressed hesitation with utility to patient care.34,54 In 5 of 15 post-only studies, providers endorsed an increase in their positive attitudes toward screening and referral programs.37,50,51,53,56

Ten studies compared pre vs post or comparison vs control group provider attitudes.25,26,30⇓–32,39,43,45,46,55 In all of these studies, the majority of providers expressed positive attitudes toward their programs and in 8 studies providers' attitudes about their comfort with screening, and perceived barriers to screening and referral programs became more positive following program implementation.30⇓–32,39,43,45,46,55

Twenty-two of the 53 studies highlighted providers' concerns about the potential negative consequences of program implementation. Providers' concerns included discomfort with socioeconomic risk screening43,61,64,70,72; insufficient time and workflow disruption32,34,35,39,43,56,59,60,62,63,66,69,70,72,75; patient discomfort and negative impact on the patient-provider relationship33,34,53,55,56,58,60,70,72,75; and insufficient knowledge and resources to adequately address screening results.34,35,43,52⇓–54,56,59,61⇓⇓–64,66,69,70,72,75,76

Provider concerns about screening and referral programs arose primarily in either nonintervention studies or the preprogram implementation period. When evaluated postprogram implementation, concerns about the negative consequences in each of these areas generally abated. Concerns generally fell into 4 categories:

  • Discomfort with screening: Four provider education and training studies examining the impacts of provider training about SDoH generally and/or socioeconomic risk screening, specifically, demonstrated improvements in provider comfort with screening in at least 1 SDoH domain after participating in a screening and referral program.32,43,45,46 One of these studies involved providing training on food insecurity to faculty, residents, and medical students and showed significantly increased self-reported knowledge of food insecurity, resources, and willingness to discuss social needs with patients.45 Two additional studies used videos and facilitated discussions to model screening; training reduced residents' discomfort with screening.32,43

  • Concerns about time and workflow: After participating in screening and referral programs, providers often characterized their experiences with screening as “not burdensome,” “quick,” and “time and workflow were not barriers to screening.”26,32,33,39,51⇓–53,56,58,60 In 1 study of 45 pediatric residents, 75% of the residents in the experimental group reported that screening forms did not slow down patient visits.26 In 3 intervention studies, providers were initially concerned about workflow but were surprised to find that the program had limited impact on their work or was otherwise beneficial, reporting that the time burden was “less than anticipated” or that screening was “worth the time.”26,39,56 In 5 studies, providers reported that time remained a concern after program exposure.43,48,54,56,60

  • Concerns about patient-provider relationships: Six studies highlighted preprogram implementation provider concerns that screening activities might negatively impact patient-provider relationships.34,53,55,56,70,72 In 5 studies assessing postimplementation attitudes, providers instead indicated that screening enhanced their relationships with patients or did not have a negative impact.33,52⇓⇓–55

  • Addressing socioeconomic risks: Concerns about the availability of resources to address identified risks revolved around providers' (1) desire for more knowledge/confidence on addressing socioeconomic needs; (2) uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of resource lists and referral networks in their interventions; and (3) interest in more systems-level logistic support and material resources. Eight studies documented provider concerns postprogram implementation about the ability to provide adequate resources to address identified socioeconomic needs.34,35,43,52⇓–54,56,59 Three studies suggested that providers' confidence around addressing patients' needs increased following program implementation.39,43,46

Attitudes and beliefs about screening and referral programs differed across groups. Several studies found that individual-level provider characteristics such as provider specialty, under-represented in medicine (URM) identity, and gender were associated with provider attitudes. One large study (n = 240 faculty physicians) found that compared with nonminority physicians and specialists, minority physicians and primary care providers (PCPs) were more likely to think that the benefits of collecting patients' socioeconomic risk information outweigh negative consequences (51% nonminority vs 66% minority physicians; 54% specialists vs 78% PCPs.).62 In the same study, all physician groups identified lack of clinic and health system infrastructure to address social needs as the primary barrier to program adoption. The second-most cited concern among nonminority physicians and specialists was uncertainty around what to do with social risk data once collected. Among minority physicians and PCPs, the second-most cited concern was liability related to not addressing an identified risk.62 In the same study, female physicians were more likely than other groups to think it was appropriate to include socioeconomic data in electronic health records.62

In 1 study with pediatric emergency medicine providers (n = 114), a majority of respondents rated screening as important; a higher percentage of nursing staff (58.1%) than physicians (28.2%) preferred screening to be conducted by physicians.67 In 1 nonintervention study (n = 258 providers), time constraints were cited as barriers by 70% of physicians compared with 47% of nonphysician providers.75 In another study of clinical faculty providers (n = 240), 54% of physicians agreed that PCPs should be primarily responsible for managing socioeconomic risk factors, but when asked whether they should be solely responsible for addressing needs, significantly more specialists than PCPs agreed.62 In 4 studies, providers reported wanting ancillary staff to provide support with screening and referrals.25,51,56,69 In 1 large study (n = 258), 94% of clinicians thought social workers should conduct screening.75

Provider Behaviors

Across nonintervention studies, providers consistently reported screening for a wide range of socioeconomic risks. Reported screening frequency, tools, and approaches varied across these studies, however. Some studies reported that providers screen a pre-established target population (eg, patients with diabetes) while others reported that providers are prompted to screen in response to patient factors (such as comorbid conditions) identified in the context of clinical encounters.69,70 Several studies highlighted associations between provider characteristics, practice settings, and provider screening and referral behaviors. Two nonintervention studies found that providers practicing in clinical settings with staff whose role is to connect patients to community resources screened more frequently and referred to more community resources than providers with no or limited on-site resources.74,76 One large study of pediatricians (n = 602) found that those identifying as female, URM, practicing as generalists, or in rural settings were more likely to routinely conduct screening.76 Another study of family practice pediatric physicians and nurse practitioners (n = 186) found a negative association with lack of provider time and monitoring for family nutrition, specifically.70

Impact of Screening and Referral Programs on Provider Behaviors

All studies assessing screening rates before and after implementation of a screening and referral program showed statistically significant increases in screening behaviors in at least 1 SDoH domain.26,27,29,32,35,39,40,45,46,56 Few studies assessed long-term impacts on screening behavior. In 1 study the “median survival time of increased screening was 8.1 month”29; in another, the screening model continued to be in use 2 years following program implementation, but screening rates were not assessed at follow-up.56

Discussion

In this scoping review, we found a diverse group of studies exploring providers' KABB related to socioeconomic risk screening and referral programs in clinical settings. Thirty-six of these studies took place in the context of specific screening and referral initiatives. Across studies, a majority of clinicians and other clinical staff generally expressed positive attitudes about addressing patients' socioeconomic needs in health care settings. Three studies in this review described significant associations between the clinical setting's capacity to address patients' socioeconomic needs and providers' sense of professional satisfaction.61,65,77

In studies conducted outside the context of a screening and referral program (n = 17), providers expressed more concerns about the potential negative consequences of program adoption. In contrast, providers exposed to these programs more consistently reported positive impacts on patient-provider relationships, increased comfort with screening and referral practices, and fewer concerns about clinic workflow disruption. However, even in the context of program exposure, concerns persisted about capacity to adequately address patients' socioeconomic needs. These findings suggest that program exposure may decrease some, but not all, provider-related barriers to implementation.

Providers' persistent concerns about capacity to adequately address patients' socioeconomic needs should not be overlooked. Existing evidence on the impacts of screening and referral programs is mixed,78 though a growing number of studies suggest referrals programs may help to reduce patients' socioeconomic needs and affect health.17,79⇓⇓⇓–83 No studies in this review, however, described a program in which providers track patient outcomes postreferral, which may contribute to providers' persistent concerns about the adequacy of their referrals. In parallel, providers' focus on intervention effectiveness should be considered alongside studies in this field that have reported patients' perspectives on screening and referral programs. These studies suggest that patients value the patient-provider rapport building that develops from discussions about socioeconomic needs regardless of the social services referrals provided.27,84⇓–86 This inconsistency between provider and patient expectations warrants more attention in provider training and education. If providers are more aware of patients' expectations, they may better understand the value of these programs beyond referrals to social services.

Findings from studies undertaken in the context of screening and referral programs strongly suggested that provider education and training initiatives can impact provider behaviors and attitudes; such programs consistently reported post-training increases in socioeconomic risk screening and referral rates. However, most of these studies assessed these behavior changes over relatively short periods (max 12 to 18 months). Characterizing core training components and assessing more longitudinal outcomes are important areas for future research. This research would be facilitated by consensus on tools that gauge providers' KABB in this area.

Interestingly, 9 of the 13 studies that included provider education and training focused on physicians or physician trainees.30⇓–32,36,43⇓⇓⇓–47 Improving physician education on these topics is a growing focus in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education.87,88 Given the multidisciplinary workforce involved in many screening and referral programs, however, more attention should focus on meeting the training needs—and assessing the impacts of training—of a more diverse workforce.14,89

Limitations

There are 4 important limitations to consider in interpreting our findings. First, we narrowly focused on provider outcomes associated with socioeconomic risk screening and referral programs. This excludes health care activities that might address other social and structural determinants of health and equity, including racism. Future reviews will need to explore the impacts of programs aimed at addressing these other drivers on patients, population health, and clinical settings. Second, study abstracts that did not refer to provider outcomes were excluded. This may have limited our ability to identify relevant studies. Third, the review reflects a wide variety of different studies, many of which assessed provider attitudes via surveys, which are likely influenced by multiple forms of bias. Qualitative work and chart-based studies could more comprehensively explore changes in KABB. Finally, study heterogeneity—including different types of socioeconomic risk screening conducted—and lack of standardized outcome measures limited our ability to draw comparisons across studies. In addition, while a critical appraisal of the studies was not included in this review, many included studies were of nonexperimental designs.

Conclusions

In this systematic scoping review, we identified a wide range of studies that describe providers' KABB related to health care–based socioeconomic risk screening and referral programs. Study contexts influenced providers' concerns about program adoption: providers not participating in these programs were more likely than providers participating in such programs to report significant feasibility and implementation barriers. Rigorously conducted studies involving both clinicians and ancillary staff members involved in screening and referral initiatives will help to identify both implementation barriers and strategies to overcome them. Future studies also should clarify training required to ensure professional competence related to social and medical care integration.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Dylnne Gonzalez in editing the manuscript.

Appendix 1. Search Strategy

Final search strategy table, January 9, 2018

Updated search January 29, 2019

Appendix 2. Characteristics of Included Studies

Notes

  • This article was externally peer reviewed.

  • To see this article online, please go to: http://jabfm.org/content/33/5/820.full.

  • Financial disclosures: AQR has no financial disclosures; HEW has no financial disclosures; JBW has no financial disclosures; MY has no financial disclosures; JMH has no financial disclosures; LMG has grants from Commonwealth Fund, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Episcopal Health Foundation, AHRQ, Kaiser Permanente, and NIMHD. LMG also has current contracts with Mathematica, RTI, and NORC, and previously with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.

  • Conflict of interest: Support for this research was provided by Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. The study sponsor did not play a role in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication.

  • Received for publication January 28, 2021.
  • Revision received March 31, 2021.
  • Accepted for publication April 14, 2021.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Braveman P,
    2. Egerter S,
    3. Williams DR
    . The social determinants of health: coming of age. Annu Rev Public Health 2011;32:381–98.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Marmot M,
    2. Bell R
    . Fair society, healthy lives. Public Health 2012;126:S4–S10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Adler NE,
    2. Stewart J
    . Preface to the biology of disadvantage: socioeconomic status and health. Ann NY Acad Sci 2010;1186:1–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Larson K,
    2. Halfon N
    . Family income gradients in the health and health care access of US children. Matern Child Health J 2010;14:332–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Victorino CC,
    2. Gauthier AH
    . The social determinants of child health: variations across health outcomes—a population-based cross-sectional analysis. BMC Pediatr 2009;9:53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Kaplan GA,
    2. Shema SJ,
    3. Leite CM
    . Socioeconomic determinants of psychological well-being: the role of income, income change, and income sources during the course of 29 years. Ann Epidemiol 2008;18:531–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Koch CG,
    2. Li L,
    3. Kaplan GA,
    4. et al
    . Socioeconomic position, not race, is linked to death after cardiac surgery. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2010;3:267–76.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Weinreb L,
    2. Wehler C,
    3. Perloff J,
    4. et al
    . Hunger: its impact on children's health and mental health. Pediatrics 2002;110:e41.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Kondo N
    . Socioeconomic disparities and health: impacts and pathways. J Epidemiol 2012;22:2–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Socioeconomic status and health in industrial nations: social, psychological, and biological pathways. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1999;896:1–503.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Marmot M
    . Social determinants of health inequalities. Lancet 2005;365:1099–104.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Cutts DB,
    2. Meyers AF,
    3. Black MM,
    4. et al
    . US housing insecurity and the health of very young children. Am J Public Health 2011;101:1508–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Arnett DK,
    2. Blumenthal RS,
    3. Albert MA,
    4. et al
    . 2019 ACC/AHA guideline on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2019;140:e596–e646.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Integrating social care into the delivery of health care: moving upstream to improve the nation's health. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2019.
  15. 15.↵
    1. Vasan A,
    2. Morgan JW,
    3. Mitra N,
    4. et al
    . Effects of a standardized community health worker intervention on hospitalization among disadvantaged patients with multiple chronic conditions: a pooled analysis of three clinical trials. Health Serv Res 2020;55(Suppl 2):894–901.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Kangovi S,
    2. Mitra N,
    3. Grande D,
    4. Long JA,
    5. Asch DA
    . Evidence-based community health worker program addresses unmet social needs and generates positive return on investment. Health Aff (Millwood) 2020;39:207–13.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    1. Kangovi S,
    2. Mitra N,
    3. Norton L,
    4. et al
    . Effect of community health worker support on clinical outcomes of low-income patients across primary care facilities: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2018;178:1635–43.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Berkowitz SA,
    2. Delahanty LM,
    3. Terranova J,
    4. et al
    . Medically tailored meal delivery for diabetes patients with food insecurity: a randomized cross-over trial. J Gen Intern Med 2019;34:396–404.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Sadowski LS,
    2. Kee RA,
    3. VanderWeele TJ,
    4. Buchanan D
    . Effect of a housing and case management program on emergency department visits and hospitalizations among chronically ill homeless adults: a randomized trial. JAMA 2009;301:1771–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Bodenheimer T,
    2. Sinsky C
    . From triple to quadruple aim: care of the patient requires care of the provider. Ann Fam Med 2014;12:573–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Arksey H,
    2. O'Malley L
    . Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Social Research Methodology 2005;8:19–32.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    1. Levac D,
    2. Colquhoun H,
    3. O'Brien KK
    . Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci 2010;5:69.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Tricco AC,
    2. Lillie E,
    3. Zarin W,
    4. et al
    . PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:467–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. McGowan J,
    2. Sampson M,
    3. Salzwedel DM,
    4. Cogo E,
    5. Foerster V,
    6. Lefebvre C
    . PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;75:40–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Seligman HK,
    2. Wang FF,
    3. Palacios JL,
    4. et al
    . Physician notification of their diabetes patients' limited health literacy: a randomized, controlled trial: erratum. J Gen Intern Med 2005;20:1077.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    1. Garg A,
    2. Butz AM,
    3. Dworkin PH,
    4. Lewis RA,
    5. Thompson RE,
    6. Serwint JR
    . Improving the management of family psychosocial problems at low-income children's well-child care visits: the WE CARE Project. Pediatrics 2007;120:547–58.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Feigelman S,
    2. Dubowitz H,
    3. Lane W,
    4. Grube L,
    5. Kim J
    . Training pediatric residents in a primary care clinic to help address psychosocial problems and prevent child maltreatment. Acad Pediatr 2011;11:474–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Dorr DA,
    2. Wilcox A,
    3. McConnell KJ,
    4. Burns L,
    5. Brunker CP
    . Productivity enhancement for primary care providers using multicondition care management. Am J Manag Care 2007;13:22–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Colvin JD,
    2. Bettenhausen JL,
    3. Anderson-Carpenter KD,
    4. et al
    . Multiple behavior change intervention to improve detection of unmet social needs and resulting resource referrals. Acad Pediatr 2016;16:168–74.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    1. Kuo AA,
    2. Shetgiri R,
    3. Guerrero AD,
    4. et al
    . A public health approach to pediatric residency education: responding to social determinants of health. J Grad Med Educ 2011;3:217–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Girotti JA,
    2. Loy GL,
    3. Michel JL,
    4. Henderson VA
    . The urban medicine program: developing physician-leaders to serve underserved urban communities. Acad Med 2015;90:1658–66.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    1. O'Toole JK,
    2. Solan LG,
    3. Burkhardt MC,
    4. Klein MD
    . Watch and learn: an innovative video trigger curriculum to increase resident screening for social determinants of health. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2013;52:344–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Sundar KR
    . Universal screening for social needs in a primary care clinic: a quality improvement approach using the Your Current Life Situation Survey. Perm J 2018;22:18–89.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    1. Knowles M,
    2. Khan S,
    3. Palakshappa D,
    4. et al
    . Successes, challenges, and considerations for integrating referral into food insecurity screening in pediatric settings. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2018;29:181–91.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    1. Chhabra M,
    2. Sorrentino AE,
    3. Cusack M,
    4. Dichter ME,
    5. Montgomery AE,
    6. True G
    . Screening for housing instability: providers' reflections on addressing a social determinant of health. J Gen Intern Med 2019;34:1213–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Onyekere C,
    2. Ross S,
    3. Namba A,
    4. Ross JC,
    5. Mann BD
    . Medical student volunteerism addresses patients' social needs: a novel approach to patient-centered care. Ochsner J 2016;16:45–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Kangovi S,
    2. Carter T,
    3. Smith RA,
    4. DeLisser HM
    . A community health worker-led rotation to train medical students in the social determinants of health. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2018;29:581–90.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    1. O'Brien MJ,
    2. Garland JM,
    3. Murphy KM,
    4. Shuman SJ,
    5. Whitaker RC,
    6. Larson SC
    . Training medical students in the social determinants of health: the Health Scholars Program at Puentes de Salud. Adv Med Educ Pract 2014;5:307–14.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Zielinski S,
    2. Paradis HA,
    3. Herendeen P,
    4. Barbel P
    . The identification of psychosocial risk factors associated with child neglect using the WE-CARE Screening Tool in a high-risk population. Erratum. J Pediatric Health Care 2018;32:211.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    1. Patel M,
    2. Bathory E,
    3. Scholnick J,
    4. White-Davis T,
    5. Choi J,
    6. Braganza S
    . Resident documentation of social determinants of health: effects of a teaching tool in the outpatient setting. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2018;57:451–6.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    1. Wahab A,
    2. Ali A,
    3. Nazir S,
    4. et al
    . A QI initiative for bridging the health literacy gap by educating internal medicine residents at a community hospital. J Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives 2018;8:260–6.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    1. Coleman CA,
    2. Fromer A
    . A health literacy training intervention for physicians and other health professionals. Fam Med 2015;47:388–92.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    1. Klein MD,
    2. Alcamo AM,
    3. Beck AF,
    4. et al
    . Can a video curriculum on the social determinants of health affect residents' practice and families' perceptions of care? Acad Pediatr 2014;14:159–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Klein MD,
    2. Kahn RS,
    3. Baker RC,
    4. Fink EE,
    5. Parrish DS,
    6. White DC
    . Training in social determinants of health in primary care: does it change resident behavior? Acad Pediatr 2011;11:387–93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Smith S,
    2. Malinak D,
    3. Chang J,
    4. Schultz A,
    5. Brownell K
    . Addressing food insecurity in family medicine and medical education. Fam Med 2017;49:765–71.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    1. Real FJ,
    2. Beck AF,
    3. Spaulding JR,
    4. Sucharew H,
    5. Klein MD
    . Impact of a neighborhood-based curriculum on the helpfulness of pediatric residents' anticipatory guidance to impoverished families. Matern Child Health J 2016;20:2261–7.
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.↵
    1. Primack BA,
    2. Bui T,
    3. Fertman CI
    . Social marketing meets health literacy: innovative improvement of health care providers' comfort with patient interaction. Patient Educ Couns 2007;68:3–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Sand-Jecklin K,
    2. Daniels CS,
    3. Lucke-Wold N
    . Incorporating health literacy screening into patients' health assessment. Clin Nurs Res 2017;26:176–90.
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.↵
    1. Gabrielian S,
    2. Chen JC,
    3. Minhaj BP,
    4. et al
    . Feasibility and acceptability of a colocated homeless-tailored primary care clinic and emergency department. J Prim Care Community Health 2017;8:338–44.
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.↵
    1. Pettignano R,
    2. Caley SB,
    3. McLaren S
    . The health law partnership: adding a lawyer to the health care team reduces system costs and improves provider satisfaction. J Public Health Manag Pract 2012;18:E1–3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Page-Reeves J,
    2. Kaufman W,
    3. Bleecker M,
    4. et al
    . Addressing social determinants of health in a clinic setting: the WellRx pilot in Albuquerque, New Mexico. J Am Board Fam Med 2016;29:414–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. 52.↵
    1. O'Toole TP,
    2. Roberts CB,
    3. Johnson EE
    . Screening for food insecurity in six Veterans Administration clinics for the homeless, June–December 2015. Prev Chronic Dis 2017;14.
  53. 53.↵
    1. Palakshappa D,
    2. Vasan A,
    3. Khan S,
    4. Seifu L,
    5. Feudtner C,
    6. Fiks AG
    . Clinicians' perceptions of screening for food insecurity in suburban pediatric practice. Pediatrics 2017;140:e20170319.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. 54.↵
    1. Tong ST,
    2. Liaw WR,
    3. Kashiri PL,
    4. et al
    . Clinician experiences with screening for social needs in primary care. J Am Board Fam Med 2018;31:351–63.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. 55.↵
    1. Cohen E,
    2. Fullerton DF,
    3. Retkin R,
    4. et al
    . Medical-legal partnership: collaborating with lawyers to identify and address health disparities. J Gen Intern Med 2010;25:136–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  56. 56.↵
    1. Eismann EA,
    2. Theuerling J,
    3. Maguire S,
    4. Hente EA,
    5. Shapiro RA
    . Integration of the Safe Environment for Every Kid (SEEK) model across primary care settings. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2019;58:166–76.
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.↵
    1. Stikes R,
    2. Arterberry K,
    3. Logsdon MC
    . A nurse leadership project to improve health literacy on a maternal-infant unit. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2015;44:665–76.
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.↵
    1. Adams E,
    2. Hargunani D,
    3. Hoffmann L,
    4. Blaschke G,
    5. Helm J,
    6. Koehler A
    . Screening for food insecurity in pediatric primary care: a clinic's positive implementation experiences. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2017;28:24–9.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    1. Hamity C,
    2. Jackson A,
    3. Peralta L,
    4. Bellows J
    . Perceptions and experience of patients, staff, and clinicians with social needs assessment. Perm J 2018;22:18–105.
    OpenUrl
  60. 60.↵
    1. Byhoff E,
    2. Garg A,
    3. Pellicer M,
    4. et al
    . Provider and staff feedback on screening for social and behavioral determinants of health for pediatric patients. J Am Board Fam Med 2019;32:297–306.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. 61.↵
    1. Olayiwola JN,
    2. Willard-Grace R,
    3. Dubé K,
    4. et al
    . Higher perceived clinic capacity to address patients' social needs associated with lower burnout in primary care providers. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2018;29:415–29.
    OpenUrl
  62. 62.↵
    1. Palacio A,
    2. Seo D,
    3. Medina H,
    4. Singh V,
    5. Suarez M,
    6. Tamariz L
    . Provider perspectives on the collection of social determinants of health. Popul Health Manag 2018;21:501–8.
    OpenUrl
  63. 63.↵
    1. Losonczy LI,
    2. Hsieh D,
    3. Hahn C,
    4. Fahimi J,
    5. Alter H
    . More than just meds: national survey of providers' perceptions of patients' social, economic, environmental, and legal needs and their effect on emergency department utilization. Soc Med 2015;9:22–8.
    OpenUrl
  64. 64.↵
    1. Grindler NM,
    2. Allshouse AA,
    3. Jungheim E,
    4. Powell TL,
    5. Jansson T,
    6. Polotsky AJ
    . OBGYN screening for environmental exposures: a call for action. PLoS One 2018;13:e0195375.
    OpenUrl
  65. 65.↵
    1. Pantell MS,
    2. De Marchis E,
    3. Bueno A,
    4. Gottlieb LM
    . Practice capacity to address patients' social needs and physician satisfaction and perceived quality of care. Ann Fam Med 2019;17:42–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  66. 66.↵
    1. Purnell TS,
    2. Marshall JK,
    3. Olorundare I,
    4. et al
    . Provider perceptions of the organization's cultural competence climate and their skills and behaviors targeting patient-centered care for socially at-risk populations. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2018;29:481–96.
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.↵
    1. Robinson T,
    2. Bryan L,
    3. Johnson V,
    4. McFadden T,
    5. Lazarus S,
    6. Simon HK
    . Hunger: a missed opportunity for screening in the pediatric emergency department. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2018;57:1318–25.
    OpenUrl
  68. 68.↵
    1. Lewis JH,
    2. Whelihan K,
    3. Navarro I,
    4. Boyle KR
    , SDH Card Study Implementation Team. Community health center provider ability to identify, treat and account for the social determinants of health: a card study. BMC Fam Pract 2016;17:121.
    OpenUrl
  69. 69.↵
    1. Pooler JA,
    2. Hoffman VA,
    3. Karva FJ
    . Primary care providers' perspectives on screening older adult patients for food insecurity. J Aging Soc Policy 2018;30:1–23.
    OpenUrl
  70. 70.↵
    1. Hoisington AT,
    2. Braverman MT,
    3. Hargunani DE,
    4. Adams EJ,
    5. Alto CL
    . Health care providers' attention to food insecurity in households with children. Prev Med 2012;55:219–22.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    1. Cafiero M
    . Nurse practitioners' knowledge, experience, and intention to use health literacy strategies in clinical practice. J Health Commun 2013;18:70–81.
    OpenUrl
  72. 72.↵
    1. Barnidge E,
    2. LaBarge G,
    3. Krupsky K,
    4. Arthur J
    . Screening for food insecurity in pediatric clinical settings: opportunities and barriers. J Community Health 2017;42:51–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  73. 73.↵
    1. Garg A,
    2. Butz AM,
    3. Dworkin PH,
    4. Lewis RA,
    5. Serwint JR
    . Screening for basic social needs at a medical home for low-income children. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2009;48:32–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.↵
    1. O'Toole JK,
    2. Burkhardt MC,
    3. Solan LG,
    4. Vaughn L,
    5. Klein MD
    . Resident confidence addressing social history: is it influenced by availability of social and legal resources? Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2012;51:625–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    1. Schickedanz A,
    2. Hamity C,
    3. Rogers A,
    4. Sharp AL,
    5. Jackson A
    . Clinician experiences and attitudes regarding screening for social determinants of health in a large integrated health system. Med Care 2019;57:S197–S201.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. 76.↵
    1. Garg A,
    2. Cull W,
    3. Olson L,
    4. et al
    . Screening and referral for low-income families' social determinants of health by US pediatricians. Acad Pediatr 2019;19:875–83.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  77. 77.↵
    1. De Marchis E,
    2. Knox M,
    3. Hessler D,
    4. et al
    . Physician burnout and higher clinic capacity to address patients' social needs. J Am Board Fam Med 2019;32:69–78.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  78. 78.↵
    1. Gottlieb LM,
    2. Wing H,
    3. Adler NE
    . A systematic review of interventions on patients' social and economic needs. Am J Prev Med 2017;53:719–29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. 79.↵
    1. Gottlieb LM,
    2. Hessler D,
    3. Long D,
    4. et al
    . Effects of social needs screening and in-person service navigation on child health: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr 2016;170:e162521.
    OpenUrl
  80. 80.↵
    1. Pantell MS,
    2. Hessler D,
    3. Long D,
    4. et al
    . Effects of in-person navigation to address family social needs on child health care utilization: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e206445.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  81. 81.↵
    1. Gottlieb LM,
    2. Adler NE,
    3. Wing H,
    4. et al
    . Effects of in-person assistance vs personalized written resources about social services on household social risks and child and caregiver health: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e200701.
    OpenUrl
  82. 82.↵
    1. Berkowitz SA,
    2. Hulberg AC,
    3. Standish S,
    4. Reznor G,
    5. Atlas SJ
    . Addressing unmet basic resource needs as part of chronic cardiometabolic disease management. JAMA Intern Med 2017;177:244–52.
    OpenUrl
  83. 83.↵
    1. Sege R,
    2. Preer G,
    3. Morton SJ,
    4. et al
    . Medical-legal strategies to improve infant health care: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 2015;136:97–106.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  84. 84.↵
    1. Byhoff E,
    2. De Marchis EH,
    3. Hessler D,
    4. et al
    . Part II: a qualitative study of social risk screening acceptability in patients and caregivers. Am J Prev Med 2019;57:S38–S46.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  85. 85.↵
    1. Rogers AJ,
    2. Hamity C,
    3. Sharp AL,
    4. Jackson AH,
    5. Schickedanz AB
    . Patients' attitudes and perceptions regarding social needs screening and navigation: multi-site survey in a large integrated health system. J Gen Intern Med 2020;35:1389–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  86. 86.↵
    1. Palakshappa D,
    2. Doupnik S,
    3. Vasan A,
    4. et al
    . Suburban families' experience with food insecurity screening in primary care practices. Pediatrics 2017;140:e20170320.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  87. 87.↵
    1. Hunter K,
    2. Thomson B
    . A scoping review of social determinants of health curricula in post-graduate medical education. Can Med Educ J 2019;10:e61–e71.
    OpenUrl
  88. 88.↵
    1. Martinez J,
    2. Fornari A,
    3. VanHuse V,
    4. et al
    . A faculty development graduate medical education retreat to teach and address social determinants of health. J Med Educ Curric Dev 2020;7:238212052091549.
    OpenUrl
  89. 89.↵
    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. A framework for educating health professionals to address the social determinants of health. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2016.
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools

Jump to section

Keywords