Table 1.

Discrepancy Between Positive Social Risk and Interest in Assistance: Examples from US Health Services Published Research*

Authors (Publication Years)	Social Risk Domain	Positive Screen, %	Positive Screen Interested in Assistance, %^†
Bottino et al. (2017)¹⁹	Food insecurity	32	54
Eismann et al. (2018)²⁶	Food insecurity	11	90
	Harsh punishment	1	70
	Parental stress	14	79
	Parental depression	9	74
	Parental substance use	<1	50
	Safety concern	6	71
Fox et al. (2016)²⁰	Food insecurity	34^‡	75^§
Garg et al. (2010)²⁵	Childcare	29	64^‖
	Education	9
	Food insecurity	11
	Housing instability	12
	Insurance	6
	Public benefits	5
	Utilities	7
Gold et al. (2018)⁷	Multiple social risk factors	91; 98^{^‖,^¶}	15; 21
Hassan et al. (2015)¹⁴	Education	14^#	56
	Financial strain	10	83
	Food insecurity	29	38
	Housing instability	34	37
	Safety concern	16	16
	Substance use	20	6
Knowles et al. (2018)²¹	Food insecurity	16	56
Martel et al. (2018)²²	Food insecurity	-^††	63
Schickedanz et al. (2019)²³	Multiple social risk factors	53^‖	48^‖
Swavely et al. (2018)⁵	Food insecurity	27	48
Tong et al. (2018)⁶	Education	2	67
	Financial strain	11	0
	Food insecurity	7	22
	Housing instability	4	20
	Safety concern	2	100
	Social isolation	2	50
Uwemedimo and May (2018)²⁴	Multiple social risk factors	43^‖	49

↵* These are examples from previously published literature but do not reflect findings from a systematic literature review.
↵† Depending on study outcome, interest signifies acceptance of referral, intervention enrollment, or similar metric. Type of assistance offered differed by study and may account for some of the noted fluctuations in interest in assistance between studies.
↵‡ Thirty-four percent were eligible for/offered a referral to food bank based on being food insecure or having public insurance, and not already enrolled in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Only 24% screened positive for food insecurity.
↵§ 75% of those eligible for referral, agreed to be referred, but only 8% were confirmed to have enrolled in the food bank.
↵‖ Authors did not provide information to separate by domain.
↵¶ Results reported are for overall percentage of participants with ≥1 endorsed social risk and percentage of those who were interested in assistance, from two different community health centers.
↵# Showing the percentage of participants who screened positive for a “major problem” in each domain.
** Included nutrition/bodyweight.
↵†† Authors only reported the total number of patients with food insecurity who accepted a referral.