The Baltimore Community-Based Organizations Neighborhood Network: Enhancing Capacity Together (CONNECT) Cluster RCT

Evaluating Intensity, Complexity, and Potential for Causal Inference in Social Needs Interventions: A Review of a Scoping Review

Importance

Interventions that address needs such as low income, housing instability, and safety are increasingly appearing in the health care sector as part of multifaceted efforts to improve health and health equity, but evidence relevant to scaling these social needs interventions is limited.

Objective

To summarize the intensity and complexity of social needs interventions included in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and assess whether these RCTs were designed to measure the causal effects of intervention components on behavioral, health, or health care utilization outcomes.

Evidence Review

This review of a scoping review was based on a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded evidence map of English-language US-based RCTs of social needs interventions published between January 1, 1995, and April 6, 2023. Studies were assessed for features related to intensity (defined using modal values as providing as-needed interaction, 8 participant contacts or more, contacts occurring every 2 weeks or more often, encounters of 30 minutes or longer, contacts over 6 months or longer, or home visits), complexity (defined as addressing multiple social needs, having dedicated staff, involving multiple intervention components or practitioners, aiming to change multiple participant behaviors [knowledge, action, or practice], requiring or providing resources or active assistance with resources, and permitting tailoring), and the ability to assess causal inferences of components (assessing interventions, comparators, and context).

Findings

This review of a scoping review of social needs interventions identified 77 RCTs in 93 publications with a total of 135 690 participants. Most articles (68 RCTs [88%]) reported 1 or more features of high intensity. All studies reported 1 or more features indicative of high complexity. Because most studies compared usual care with multicomponent interventions that were moderately or highly dependent on context and individual factors, their designs permitted causal inferences about overall effectiveness but not about individual components.

Conclusions and Relevance

Social needs interventions are complex, intense, and include multiple components. Our findings suggest that RCTs of these interventions address overall intervention effectiveness but are rarely designed to distinguish the causal effects of specific components despite being resource intensive. Future studies with hybrid effectiveness-implementation and sequential designs, and more standardized reporting of intervention intensity and complexity could help stakeholders assess the return on investment of these interventions.

Characteristics of hospital and health system initiatives to address social determinants of health in the United States: a scoping review of the peer-reviewed literature

Background

Despite the incentives and provisions created for hospitals by the US Affordable Care Act related to value-based payment and community health needs assessments, concerns remain regarding the adequacy and distribution of hospital efforts to address SDOH. This scoping review of the peer-reviewed literature identifies the key characteristics of hospital/health system initiatives to address SDOH in the US, to gain insight into the progress and gaps.

Methods

PRISMA-ScR criteria were used to inform a scoping review of the literature. The article search was guided by an integrated framework of Healthy People SDOH domains and industry recommended SDOH types for hospitals. Three academic databases were searched for eligible articles from 1 January 2018 to 30 June 2023. Database searches yielded 3,027 articles, of which 70 peer-reviewed articles met the eligibility criteria for the review.

Results

Most articles (73%) were published during or after 2020 and 37% were based in Northeast US. More initiatives were undertaken by academic health centers (34%) compared to safety-net facilities (16%). Most (79%) were research initiatives, including clinical trials (40%). Only 34% of all initiatives used the EHR to collect SDOH data. Most initiatives (73%) addressed two or more types of SDOH, e.g., food and housing. A majority (74%) were downstream initiatives to address individual health-related social needs (HRSNs). Only 9% were upstream efforts to address community-level structural SDOH, e.g., housing investments. Most initiatives (74%) involved hot spotting to target HRSNs of high-risk patients, while 26% relied on screening and referral. Most initiatives (60%) relied on internal capacity vs. community partnerships (4%). Health disparities received limited attention (11%). Challenges included implementation issues and limited evidence on the systemic impact and cost savings from interventions.

Conclusion

Hospital/health system initiatives have predominantly taken the form of downstream initiatives to address HRSNs through hot-spotting or screening-and-referral. The emphasis on clinical trials coupled with lower use of EHR to collect SDOH data, limits transferability to safety-net facilities. Policymakers must create incentives for hospitals to invest in integrating SDOH data into EHR systems and harnessing community partnerships to address SDOH. Future research is needed on the systemic impact of hospital initiatives to address SDOH.

Late life anxiety and depression symptoms, and suicidal behaviors in racial/ethnic minority older adults in community-based organizations and community clinics in the U.S

OBJECTIVE

Late life anxiety and depression represent a significant source of disability, with racial/ethnic minority older adults in the U.S. showing marked disparities in healthy aging. Community-based organizations (CBOs) and community clinics serve these populations for preventive care, yet few identify their mental health service needs. We examine the association between race/ethnicity and risk of mild-to-severe symptoms of anxiety and depression, and suicidal behaviors in minority older adults.

METHOD

Data come from the multisite randomized controlled trial Building Community Capacity for Disability Prevention for Minority Elders, which screened 1,057 adults (45.5% Asian, 26.8% Latinx, 15.0% non-Latinx Black, 8.5% non-Latinx White, and 4.2% American Indian) aged 60 + years at CBOs and clinics in Massachusetts, New York, Florida, and Puerto Rico. Screened participants completed the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) for anxiety symptoms, the Geriatric Depression Scale-15 (GDS-15) for depression symptoms, and the Paykel Suicide Risk Questionnaire for suicidal behaviors.

RESULTS

28.1% of older adults reported mild-to-severe anxiety symptoms, 30.1% reported mild-to-severe depression symptoms, and 4.3% reported at least one suicidal behavior. Compared to non-Latinx Whites, Latinxs had higher odds of mild-to-severe anxiety and depression symptoms and one or more suicidal behaviors, and Asians had higher odds of mild-to-severe depression symptoms only.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an urgent need to improve outreach for screening and preventive mental health care for minority older adults. Expanding outreach and community-based capacity to identify and treat minority older adults with mental health conditions represents an opportunity to prevent disability. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Screening for the social determinants of health: Referring patients to community-based services

BACKGROUND

Screening patients for the social determinants of health (SDOH) allows clinicians to identify those needs and tailor referral efforts. Due to constraints on clinic time and monetary resources, a simple screening tool incorporated into existing clinic workflow increases its usefulness and impact.

LOCAL PROBLEM

Our free, nurse-led, mobile health clinic (MHC) needed an enhanced process or tool for screening patients for SDOH. The purpose of this quality-improvement project was to screen adult patients in the MHC for SDOH needs and to increase volunteer staff perceptions of their knowledge and confidence in referring patients to relevant community-based services.

METHODS

A screening process and tool was developed using guidelines from the Health Leads to identify patients' SDOH needs and related requests for assistance. The tool was introduced to and tested among volunteer staff through pretest/posttest surveys.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients who visited the clinic were screened for the SDOH within the project period, and volunteer staff were surveyed about their perceptions of the screening tool.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients were screened for SDOH needs. Twenty-three percent reported food insecurity, 27% housing insecurity, 14% difficulty obtaining utilities, and 17% difficulty obtaining transportation; 28% requested assistance with their reported SDOH needs. Seventeen percent of patients reported two or more SDOH needs. At posttest, 100% of volunteer staff ( N = 9) indicated satisfaction with the SDOH screening questions, reported feeling knowledgeable about resources to use for patient referrals, and were confident in referring patients to needed resources.

CONCLUSION

The screening tool aptly guided practice and was evaluated as "easy to use" for clinic patients and volunteer staff.

A Community-Based Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Telehealth Program Focused on Latinx Sexual Minority Men

Latinx sexual minority men (LSMM) face multilevel barriers to accessing HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). To address these barriers, we designed and implemented community-based organization (CBO)-PrEP, a collaborative community-based telehealth PrEP program for LSMM. We designed this PrEP delivery program through a collaborative process involving staff from local CBOs and a primary care-based HIV prevention program. Staff met weekly over a 3-month period to establish protocols for referrals, obtaining insurance coverage, and navigation to appointments and laboratory testing. To assess feasibility, we extracted electronic medical record data including demographics and clinical outcomes of PrEP care. Between December 2020 and May 2023, 102 individuals were referred to CBO-PrEP of which 85 had Hispanic/Latino as their ethnicity in their medical records; out of 102 individuals, 72 (70.6%) were scheduled for an initial appointment. Out of 72 individuals scheduled for an appointment, 58 (80.6%) were seen by a health care provider a median of 7.5 days after referral [interquartile range (IQR), 2-19]; 48 (82.6%) of initial appointments were through telemedicine, 10 (17.2%) were seen in person. Of the 48 patients who had a telehealth appointment, 36 (75%) underwent initial laboratory testing and 42 (87.5) were prescribed PrEP; all 10 patients who were seen in person underwent laboratory testing and were prescribed PrEP. PrEP prescriptions were received in a median of 17.5 days (IQR 4.5-33.5) after referral. CBO-PrEP successfully engaged LSMM, a population that is often hard to reach. Expanding collaborative approaches with CBOs could have a significant impact on improving PrEP uptake for LSMM and other priority populations.

Community-based organizations' perspectives on piloting health and social care integration in North Carolina

BACKGROUND

Community-based organizations (CBOs) are key players in health and social care integration initiatives, yet little is known about CBO perspectives and experiences in these pilot programs. Understanding CBO perspectives is vital to identifying best practices for successful medical and social care integration.

METHODS

From February 2021 to March 2021, we conducted surveys with 12 CBOs that participated in the North Carolina COVID-19 Social Support Program, a pre-pilot for North Carolina's Medicaid Sect. 1115 demonstration waiver program that addresses social drivers of health.

RESULTS

CBO participants preferred communication strategies that involved direct communication and felt clear communication was vital to the program's success. Participants expressed varied experiences regarding their ability to handle a changing volume of referrals. Participants identified their organizations' strengths as: strong organizational operations, past experiences with and understanding of the community, and coordination across organizations. Participants identified challenges as: difficulty communicating with clients, coping with capacity demands for scaling services, and lack of clear processes from external organizations. Almost all CBO participants expressed enthusiasm for participating in similar social care transformation programs in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

CBO participants in our study had broadly positive experiences in the pilot program and almost all would participate in a similar program in the future. Participants provided perspectives that can inform health and social care integration initiatives, including strengths and challenges in such programs. To build and sustain health and social care integration programs, it is important to: (1) support CBOs through regular, direct communication that builds trust and power-sharing between CBO and health care entities; (2) leverage CBO community expertise; and (3) pursue an individualized assessment of CBO capacity and identify CBO capacity-building strategies that ensure program success and sustainability.

Models of social prescribing to address non-medical needs in adults: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

The health and wellbeing consequences of social determinants of health and health behaviours are well established. This has led to a growing interest in social prescribing, which involves linking people to services and supports in the community and voluntary sectors to address non-medical needs. However, there is considerable variability in approaches to social prescribing with little guidance on how social prescribing could be developed to reflect local health systems and needs. The purpose of this scoping review was to describe the types of social prescribing models used to address non-medical needs to inform co-design and decision-making for social prescribing program developers.

METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE(R), CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform, and ProQuest - Dissertations and Theses for articles and grey literature describing social prescribing programs. Reference lists of literature reviews were also searched. The searches were conducted on 2 August 2021 and yielded 5383 results following removal of duplicates.

RESULTS

148 documents describing 159 social prescribing programs were included in the review. We describe the contexts in which the programs were delivered, the program target groups and services/supports to which participants were referred, the staff involved in the programs, program funding, and the use of digital systems.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variability in social prescribing approaches internationally. Social prescribing programs can be summarised as including six planning stages and six program processes. We provide guidance for decision-makers regarding what to consider when designing social prescribing programs.

Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Partnering with consumers in the planning, delivery and evaluation of health services is an essential component of person-centred care. There are many ways to partner with consumers to improve health services, including formal group partnerships (such as committees, boards or steering groups). However, consumers' and health providers' views and experiences of formal group partnerships remain unclear. In this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focus specifically on formal group partnerships where health providers and consumers share decision-making about planning, delivering and/or evaluating health services. Formal group partnerships were selected because they are widely used throughout the world to improve person-centred care. For the purposes of this QES, the term 'consumer' refers to a person who is a patient, carer or community member who brings their perspective to health service partnerships. 'Health provider' refers to a person with a health policy, management, administrative or clinical role who participates in formal partnerships in an advisory or representative capacity. This QES was co-produced with a Stakeholder Panel of consumers and health providers. The QES was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane intervention review entitled Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

1. To synthesise the views and experiences of consumers and health providers of formal partnership approaches that aimed to improve planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. 2. To identify best practice principles for formal partnership approaches in health services by understanding consumers' and health providers' views and experiences.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and October 2018. We also searched grey literature sources including websites of relevant research and policy organisations involved in promoting person-centred care.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative studies that explored consumers' and health providers' perceptions and experiences of partnering in formal group formats to improve the planning, delivery or evaluation of health services.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Following completion of abstract and full-text screening, we used purposive sampling to select a sample of eligible studies that covered a range of pre-defined criteria, including rich data, range of countries and country income level, settings, participants, and types of partnership activities. A Framework Synthesis approach was used to synthesise the findings of the sample. We appraised the quality of each study using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skill Program) tool. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. The Stakeholder Panel was involved in each stage of the review from development of the protocol to development of the best practice principles.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 182 studies that were eligible for inclusion. From this group, we selected 33 studies to include in the final synthesis. These studies came from a wide range of countries including 28 from high-income countries and five from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). Each of the studies included the experiences and views of consumers and/or health providers of partnering in formal group formats. The results were divided into the following categories. Contextual factors influencing partnerships: government policy, policy implementation processes and funding, as well as the organisational context of the health service, could facilitate or impede partnering (moderate level of confidence). Consumer recruitment: consumer recruitment occurred in different ways and consumers managed the recruitment process in a minority of studies only (high level of confidence). Recruiting a range of consumers who were reflective of the clinic's demographic population was considered desirable, particularly by health providers (high level of confidence). Some health providers perceived that individual consumers' experiences were not generalisable to the broader population whereas consumers perceived it could be problematic to aim to represent a broad range of community views (high level of confidence). Partnership dynamics and processes: positive interpersonal dynamics between health providers and consumers facilitated partnerships (high level of confidence). However, formal meeting formats and lack of clarity about the consumer role could constrain consumers' involvement (high level of confidence). Health providers' professional status, technical knowledge and use of jargon were intimidating for some consumers (high level of confidence) and consumers could feel their experiential knowledge was not valued (moderate level of confidence). Consumers could also become frustrated when health providers dominated the meeting agenda (moderate level of confidence) and when they experienced token involvement, such as a lack of decision-making power (high level of confidence) Perceived impacts on partnership participants: partnering could affect health provider and consumer participants in both positive and negative ways (high level of confidence). Perceived impacts on health service planning, delivery and evaluation: partnering was perceived to improve the person-centredness of health service culture (high level of confidence), improve the built environment of the health service (high level of confidence), improve health service design and delivery e.g. facilitate 'out of hours' services or treatment closer to home (high level of confidence), enhance community ownership of health services, particularly in LMICs (moderate level of confidence), and improve consumer involvement in strategic decision-making, under certain conditions (moderate level of confidence). There was limited evidence suggesting partnering may improve health service evaluation (very low level of confidence). Best practice principles for formal partnering to promote person-centred care were developed from these findings. The principles were developed collaboratively with the Stakeholder Panel and included leadership and health service culture; diversity; equity; mutual respect; shared vision and regular communication; shared agendas and decision-making; influence and sustainability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Successful formal group partnerships with consumers require health providers to continually reflect and address power imbalances that may constrain consumers' participation. Such imbalances may be particularly acute in recruitment procedures, meeting structure and content and decision-making processes. Formal group partnerships were perceived to improve the physical environment of health services, the person-centredness of health service culture and health service design and delivery. Implementing the best practice principles may help to address power imbalances, strengthen formal partnering, improve the experiences of consumers and health providers and positively affect partnership outcomes.

Implementation Fidelity of Chatbot Screening for Social Needs: Acceptability, Feasibility, Appropriateness

OBJECTIVES

Patient and provider-facing screening tools for social determinants of health have been explored in a variety of contexts; however, effective screening and resource referral remain challenging, and less is known about how patients perceive chatbots as potential social needs screening tools. We investigated patient perceptions of a chatbot for social needs screening using three implementation outcome measures: acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness.

METHODS

We implemented a chatbot for social needs screening at one large public hospital emergency department (ED) and used concurrent triangulation to assess perceptions of the chatbot use for screening. A total of 350 ED visitors completed the social needs screening and rated the chatbot on implementation outcome measures, and 22 participants engaged in follow-up phone interviews.

RESULTS

The screened participants ranged in age from 18 to 90 years old and were diverse in race/ethnicity, education, and insurance status. Participants (n = 350) rated the chatbot as an acceptable, feasible, and appropriate way of screening. Through interviews (n = 22), participants explained that the chatbot was a responsive, private, easy to use, efficient, and comfortable channel to report social needs in the ED, but wanted more information on data use and more support in accessing resources.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we deployed a chatbot for social needs screening in a real-world context and found patients perceived the chatbot to be an acceptable, feasible, and appropriate modality for social needs screening. Findings suggest that chatbots are a promising modality for social needs screening and can successfully engage a large, diverse patient population in the ED. This is significant, as it suggests that chatbots could facilitate a screening process that ultimately connects patients to care for social needs, improving health and well-being for members of vulnerable patient populations.

Racial Health Equity and Social Needs Interventions: A Review of a Scoping Review

Importance

Social 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.

Objective

To understand how studies of interventions addressing social needs among multiracial or multiethnic populations conceptualize and analyze differential intervention outcomes by race or ethnicity.

Evidence Review

Sources 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).

Findings

Of 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 Relevance

In 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.

Eliminating Disparities in Cardiovascular Disease for Black Women: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Black women are disproportionately affected by cardiovascular disease with an excess burden of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. In addition, the racialized structure of the United States shapes cardiovascular disease research and health care delivery for Black women. Given the indisputable evidence of the disparities in health care delivery, research, and cardiovascular outcomes, there is an urgent need to develop and implement effective and sustainable solutions to advance cardiovascular health equity for Black women while considering their ethnic diversity, regions of origin, and acculturation. Innovative and culturally tailored strategies that consider the differential impact of social determinants of health and the unique challenges that shape their health-seeking behaviors should be implemented. A patient-centered framework that involves collaboration among clinicians, health care systems, professional societies, and government agencies is required to improve cardiovascular outcomes for Black women. The time is "now" to achieve health equity for all Black women.

Intersecting systemic and personal barriers to accessing social services: qualitative interviews in northern California

Background

Addressing social risks in the clinical setting can increase patient confidence in the availability of community resources and may contribute to the development of a therapeutic alliance which has been correlated with treatment adherence and improved quality of life in mental health contexts. It is not well understood what barriers patients face when trying to connect to community resources that help address social risks. This paper aims to describe patient-reported barriers to accessing and using social needs-related resources to which they are referred by a program embedded in a safety net primary care clinic.

Methods

This is a qualitative assessment of patient-reported barriers to accessing and using social needs assistance programs. We conducted over 100 in-depth interviews with individuals in Northern California who participated in a navigation and referral program to help address their social needs and describe a unique framework for understanding how policies and systems intersect with an individual’s personal life circumstances.

Results

Individuals described two distinct domains of barriers: 1) systems-level barriers that were linked to the inequitable distribution of and access to resources, and 2) personal-level barriers that focused on unique limitations experienced by each patient and impacted the way that they accessed services in their communities. While these barriers often overlapped or manifested in similar outcomes, this distinction was key because the systems barriers were not things that individuals could control or overcome through their own initiative or by increasing individual capacity.

Conclusions

Respondents describe intersecting systemic and personal barriers that compound patients’ challenges to getting their social needs met; this includes both a picture of the inequitable distribution of and access to social services and a profile of the limitations created by individual life histories. These results speak to the need for structural changes to improve adequacy, availability, and accessibility of social needs resources. These findings highlight the need for advocacy to address systems barriers, especially the stigma that is faced by people who struggle with a variety of health and social issues, and investment in incentives to strengthen relationships between health care settings and social service agencies.

Screening and Interventions for Social Risk Factors: Technical Brief to Support the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Evidence-based guidance is limited on how clinicians should screen for social risk factors and which interventions related to these risk factors improve health outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To describe research on screening and interventions for social risk factors to inform US Preventive Services Task Force considerations of the implications for its portfolio of recommendations.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts (through 2018); Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network evidence library (January 2019 through May 2021); surveillance through May 21, 2021; interviews with 17 key informants.

STUDY SELECTION

Individual-level and health care system-level interventions with a link to the health care system that addressed at least 1 of 7 social risk domains: housing instability, food insecurity, transportation difficulties, utility needs, interpersonal safety, education, and financial strain.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

One investigator abstracted data from studies and a second investigator evaluated data abstractions for completeness and accuracy; key informant interviews were recorded, transcribed, summarized, and integrated with evidence from the literature; narrative synthesis with supporting tables and figures.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Validity of multidomain social risk screening tools; all outcomes reported for social risk-related interventions; challenges or unintended consequences of screening and interventions.

RESULTS

Many multidomain social risk screening tools have been developed, but they vary widely in their assessment of social risk and few have been validated. This technical brief identified 106 social risk intervention studies (N = 5 978 596). Of the interventions studied, 73 (69%; n = 127 598) addressed multiple social risk domains. The most frequently addressed domains were food insecurity (67/106 studies [63%], n = 141 797), financial strain (52/106 studies [49%], n = 111 962), and housing instability (63/106 studies [59%], n = 5 881 222). Food insecurity, housing instability, and transportation difficulties were identified by key informants as the most important social risk factors to identify in health care. Thirty-eight studies (36%, n = 5 850 669) used an observational design with no comparator, and 19 studies (18%, n = 15 205) were randomized clinical trials. Health care utilization measures were the most commonly reported outcomes in the 68 studies with a comparator (38 studies [56%], n = 111 102). The literature and key informants described many perceived or potential challenges to implementation of social risk screening and interventions in health care.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Many interventions to address food insecurity, financial strain, and housing instability have been studied, but more randomized clinical trials that report health outcomes from social risk screening and intervention are needed to guide widespread implementation in health care.

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation

BACKGROUND

Health services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants. This review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of 'working in partnership' interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3). The effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table. We are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use. Overall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.

Upstream With A Small Paddle: How ACOs Are Working Against The Current To Meet Patients' Social Needs

Despite interest in addressing social determinants of health to improve patient outcomes, little progress has been made in integrating social services with medical care. We aimed to understand how health care providers with strong motivation (for example, operating under new payment models) and commitment (for example, early adopters) fared at addressing patients' social needs. We collected qualitative data from twenty-two accountable care organizations (ACOs). These ACOs were early adopters and were working on initiatives to address social needs, including such common needs as transportation, housing, and food. However, even these ACOs faced significant difficulties in integrating social services with medical care. First, the ACOs were frequently "flying blind," lacking data on both their patients' social needs and the capabilities of potential community partners. Additionally, partnerships between ACOs and community-based organizations were critical but were only in the early stages of development. Innovation was constrained by ACOs' difficulties in determining how best to approach return on investment, given shorter funding cycles and longer time horizons to see returns on social determinants investments. Policies that could facilitate the integration of social determinants include providing sustainable funding, implementing local and regional networking initiatives to facilitate partnership development, and developing standardized data on community-based organizations' services and quality to aid providers that seek partners.

Implementing Community Resource Referral Technology: Facilitators And Barriers Described By Early Adopters

Health care organizations are increasingly implementing programs to address patients' social conditions. To support these efforts, new technology platforms have emerged to facilitate referrals to community social services organizations. To understand the functionalities of these platforms and identify the lessons learned by their early adopters in health care, we reviewed nine platforms that were on the market in 2018 and interviewed representatives from thirty-five early-adopter health care organizations. We identified key informants through solicited expert recommendations and web searches. With minor variations, all platforms in the sample provided similar core functionalities: screening for social risks, a resource directory, referral management, care coordination, privacy protection, systems integration, and reporting and analytics. Early adopters reported three key implementation challenges: engaging community partners, managing internal change processes, and ensuring compliance with privacy regulations. We conclude that early engagement with social services partners, funding models that support both direct and indirect costs, and stronger evidence of effectiveness together could help advance platform adoption.

Evaluation of an Electronic Health Record Referral Process to Enhance Participation in Evidence-Based Arthritis Interventions

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

Effective community-based programs to manage arthritis exist, but many adults with arthritis are unaware that these programs are available in their communities. An electronic health record (EHR) referral intervention was designed to strengthen health care and community-based partnerships and increase participation in these arthritis programs. The intervention was developed in response to a national effort that aimed to enhance the health, wellness, and quality of life for people with arthritis by increasing the awareness and availability of, and participation in arthritis-appropriate evidence-based interventions.

INTERVENTION APPROACH

The National Recreation and Park Association recruited 4 park and recreation agencies and their health care partners to implement an EHR-based retrospective and point-of-care referral intervention. Eligible for referral were adults aged 45 or older with an arthritis condition who were seen by a physician within the past 18 months, and were living within the park and recreation service area. After health care organizations identified eligible adults, they either mailed communication packages describing the availability and benefits of the intervention and conducted phone calls to encourage arthritis-appropriate intervention participation or counseled and referred patients during an office visit.

EVALUATION METHODS

The pilot was assessed by using semi-structured interviews with key intervention staff members and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

RESULTS

Our approach resulted in referrals for 3,660 people, 1,063 (29%) of whom participated in an intervention. Analysis of key informant interviews also highlighted the specific contextual factors, facilitators, and barriers that influenced the adaptation and overall implementation of the referral intervention.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH

Our pilot demonstrates that successful coordination between health care organizations and community-based organizations can promote awareness of and participation in community-based programs. An understanding of the contextual factors and lessons learned can be used to inform processes that can lead to more effective and sustainable health care and community-based partnerships.

The Silence of Food Insecurity: Disconnections Between Primary Care and Community Organizations

Purpose

Food insecurity is a prominent issue in the United States, and it is well established that food insecurity is linked to health and chronic illnesses. Studies show that screening for food insecurity is not yet part of standardized practice among all primary care physicians, nor are care providers comfortable with how to proceed with a patient who presents with this issue. Food insecurity is often handled by community-based organizations (CBOs) such as food pantries. Family medicine and pediatric clinics (FMPC) and CBOs hold unique relationships with their clients and can benefit from partnerships with each other to improve health in their community. The goal of this research was to better understand the connections between primary care and community organizations in addressing food insecurity.

Methods

Focus groups and key informant interviews with FMPC providers and members of local CBOs (2 food pantries) were held from 2018 to 2019. Perceptions of participants regarding food insecurity were collected and analyzed concurrently using a grounded theory approach. Focus groups were transcribed and data analyzed for theme emergence.

Results

A total of 39 participants took part in 4 focus groups (each with 8-10 participants) and 4 individual key informant interviews. The following themes emerged in both FMPC and CBO, in parallel yet separate ways: meaningful relationships; stigma; conversation starters; having the answers; safe spaces; and purposeful training.

Conclusions

There is a disconnect between primary care and community organizations in regard to addressing food insecurity. FMPC and CBO could work together to create intentional intersections to address food insecurity and health in their shared populations.

Effects of a standardized community health worker intervention on hospitalization among disadvantaged patients with multiple chronic conditions: A pooled analysis of three clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the effects of a standardized community health worker (CHW) intervention on hospitalization.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

Pooled data from three randomized clinical trials (n = 1340) conducted between 2011 and 2016.

STUDY DESIGN

The trials in this pooled analysis were conducted across diseases and settings, with a common study design, intervention, and outcome measures. Participants were patients living in high-poverty regions of Philadelphia and were predominantly Medicaid insured. They were randomly assigned to receive usual care versus IMPaCT, an intervention in which CHWs provide tailored social support, health behavior coaching, connection with resources, and health system navigation. Trial one (n = 446) tested two weeks of IMPaCT among hospitalized general medical patients. Trial two (n = 302) tested six months of IMPaCT among outpatients at two academic primary care clinics. Trial three (n = 592) tested six months of IMPaCT among outpatients at academic, Veterans Affairs (VA), and Federally Qualified Health Center primary care practices.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

The primary outcome for this study was all-cause hospitalization, as measured by total number of hospital days per patient. Hospitalization data were collected from statewide or VA databases at 30 days postenrollment in Trial 1, twelve months postenrollment in Trial 2, and nine months postenrollment in Trial 3.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Over 9398 observed patient months, the total number of hospital days per patient in the intervention group was 66 percent of the total in the control group (849 days for 674 intervention patients vs 1258 days for 660 control patients, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.66, P < .0001). This reduction was driven by fewer hospitalizations per patient (0.27 vs 0.34, P < .0001) and shorter mean length of stay (4.72 vs 5.57 days, P = .03). The intervention also decreased rates of hospitalization outside patients' primary health system (18.8 percent vs 34.8 percent, P = .0023).

CONCLUSIONS

Data from three randomized clinical trials across multiple settings show that a standardized CHW intervention reduced total hospital days and hospitalizations outside the primary health system. This is the largest analysis of randomized trials to demonstrate reductions in hospitalization with a health system-based social intervention.

Patient and Community Organization Perspectives on Accessing Social Resources from the Emergency Department: A Qualitative Study

INTRODUCTION

Social risks adversely affect health and are associated with increased healthcare utilization and costs. Emergency department (ED) patients have high rates of social risk; however, little is known about best practices for ED-based screening or linkage to community resources. We examined the perspectives of patients and community organizations regarding social risk screening and linkage from the ED.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of ED patients and local community organization staff. Participants completed a brief demographic survey, health literacy assessment, and qualitative interview focused on barriers/facilitators to social risk screening in the ED, and ideas for screening and linkage interventions in the ED. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish, recorded, transcribed, and coded. Themes were identified by consensus.

RESULTS

We conducted 22 interviews with 16 patients and six community organization staff. Three categories of themes emerged. The first related to the importance of social risk screening in the ED. The second category encompassed challenges regarding screening and linkage, including fear, mistrust, transmission of accurate information, and time/resource constraints. The third category included suggestions for improvement and program development. Patients had varied preferences for verbal vs electronic strategies for screening. Community organization staff emphasized resource scarcity and multimodal communication strategies.

CONCLUSION

The development of flexible, multimodal, social risk screening tools, and the creation and maintenance of an accurate database of local resources, are strategies that may facilitate improved identification of social risk and successful linkage to available community resources.