Social Determinants of Health Assessment Tool: Implications for Healthcare Practice

Social work's opportunity and obligation to achieve population health equity

US healthcare remains a system in crisis, wherein spending outpaces other Western economies but health inequities match those of an emerging market economy. As a country founded in tenets of white supremacy, structural racism persists as evidenced by longstanding race-based disparities. Although the population health approach offers a potential framework for preventative and community-based health, without overt race-conscious design, race-based disparities will be replicated. This article outlines the current US context and healthcare policy changes that led to population health taking hold. It then articulates social work's pivotal role in population health by explicitly challenging colorblindness to reach race-based health equity. Opportunities for social work practice, leadership, and research are discussed.

Cashin A, Barker T, A. Boyd M, Chiarotto A, Dewidar O, Petkovic J, Sharma S, Tugwell P, Moseley GL. The 'what' and 'how' of screening for social needs in healthcare settings: a scoping review

Background

Adverse social determinants of health give rise to individual-level social needs that have the potential to negatively impact health. Screening patients to identify unmet social needs is becoming more widespread. A review of the content of currently available screening tools is warranted. The aim of this scoping review was to determine what social needs categories are included in published Social Needs Screening Tools that have been developed for use in primary care settings, and how these social needs are screened.

Methods

We pre-registered the study on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/dqan2/). We searched MEDLINE and Embase from 01/01/2010 to 3/05/2022 to identify eligible studies reporting tools designed for use in primary healthcare settings. Two reviewers independently screened studies, a single reviewer extracted data. We summarised the characteristics of included studies descriptively and calculated the number of studies that collected data relevant to specific social needs categories. We identified sub-categories to classify the types of questions relevant to each of the main categories.

Results

We identified 420 unique citations, and 27 were included. Nine additional studies were retrieved by searching for tools that were used or referred to in excluded studies. Questions relating to food insecurity and the physical environment in which a person lives were the most frequently included items (92-94% of tools), followed by questions relating to economic stability and aspects of social and community context (81%). Seventy-five percent of the screening tools included items that evaluated five or more social needs categories (mean 6.5; standard deviation 1.75). One study reported that the tool had been 'validated'; 16 reported 'partial' validation; 12 reported that the tool was 'not validated' and seven studies did not report validation processes or outcomes.

A Scoping Review and Narrative Synthesis Comparing the Constructs of Social Determinants of Health and Social Determinants of Mental Health: Matryoshka or Two Independent Constructs?

Background

Many health research policies invoke the construct of Social Determinants of Health, and more recently the construct of Social Determinants of Mental Health. While frequently referred to in the literature, it is unclear how these constructs relate to each other. Some commentators conceptualise the Determinants of Mental Health as a subgroup of the Determinants of general Health and others describe the Determinants of Mental Health as an autonomous construct. The current review investigates the relationship between both constructs.

Methods

Comprehensive literature searches were conducted for both constructs separately within seven electronic databases. A template analysis was conducted to compare the conceptualisations of the Social Determinants of Health and the Social Determinants of Mental Health.

Results

Of 4250 search results, 50 papers (25 for each construct) fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were incorporated into a narrative synthesis. Discussions of the Social Determinants of both general and Mental Health listed the same determinants. Both constructs were conceptualised on multiple levels and factors. Stress and health behaviour were also described as mediators for both constructs. The constructs differed, however, with respect to two components of their aetiologies and epistemologies. First, the causal mechanisms invoked for the Determinants of general Health followed predominantly direct pathways, in contrast to indirect pathways for the Social Determinants of Mental Health. Second, the Social Determinants of Mental Health were reported to influence mental health mediated through individuals' perceptions and appraisal processes. Appraisal processes were considered of far less relevance in the construct of Social Determinants of Health.

Conclusion

The constructs of Social Determinants of Health and Social Determinants of Mental Health align in many respects but differ on important aetiological and epistemological grounds. Similar social factors are considered important, but whereas physical health conditions are primarily conceptualised to be driven by objective realities, mental health is explained mainly in terms of perception of these realities. This differentiation between physical and mental health is in line with a modern understanding of mind-body-dualism, the naturalistic dualism after Chalmers. Differentiating the Social Determinants of Mental Health from the Social Determinants of Health might bear relevance for policy making and research.