Table 5.

Acceptability of Social Screening Domains

First Author (Year)Findings
Key Quantitative Findings
Careyva (2018) A greater percentage of participants ranked health/health care domains as screening priorities rather than social domains:

  • 26% ranked access to health care as a priority domain

  • 24% ranked health-promoting behaviors as a priority domain

  • 15% ranked family responsibilities as a priority domain

  • 14% ranked financial resources as a priority domain

  • 6% ranked education and employment as a priority domain

  • 6% ranked transportation as a priority domain

  • 1% ranked legal services as a priority domain

Langerman (2019)59% of participants found sex trafficking and 65% found housing to be acceptable screening domains

  • Adolescents less likely than patient caregivers to find sex trafficking to be an acceptable screening domain (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39, 0.86)

  • No differences by gender

Key Qualitative Findings
Wylie (2012)Few participants found income sensitive/embarrassing to discuss
Few participants found food security status sensitive/embarrassing to discuss
No participants verbalized finding housing sensitive/embarrassing to discuss
Some participants were confused regarding social domains traditionally handled by parents, such as the use of food stamps, housing, and income security
Hamity (2018)The majority of participants thought their health system should ask about food affordability and basic living expenses, housing and homelessness, social isolation, and transportation
Byhoff (2020)All participants found immigration to be an acceptable screening domain
Emengo (2020)Participants found housing, employment, and social isolation to be acceptable screening domains

  • Abbreviations: OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.