A Review of Tools to Screen for Social Determinants of Health in the United States: A Practice Brief

Moen, Marik; Storr, Carla L.; German, Danielle; Friedmann, Erika; Johantgen, Meg

doi:10.1089/pop.2019.0158

Cited by 45 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Future studies should examine whether the AHC and YCLS differ in patients’ willingness to receive assistance with identified social risks. [ 21 44 45 46 47 48 ] One tool may better identify those in need who also want help, which could help focus intervention efforts. Although this study evaluated the psychometric properties of the AHC and YCLS, more information on the patient acceptability of these tools is needed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent reviews concluded that although multiple low-cost, linguistically appropriate tools exist to screen for social risks,[ 17 ] there is a dearth of psychometric evidence for their appropriate use. [ 18 19 20 21 22 ] Without evidence of reliability and validity, it is unclear whether existing tools are adequately and accurately capturing patients’ social information. This lack of psychometric information makes it difficult to select screening tools.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing the performance of two social risk screening tools in a vulnerable subpopulation

Lewis

Wellman

Walsh‐Bailey

et al. 2020

J Family Med Prim Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Research shows the profound impact of social factors on health, lead many healths systems to incorporate social risk screening. To help healthcare systems select among various screening tools we compared two tools, the Your Current Life Situation (YCLS) and the Accountable Health Communities (AHC) Screening tools, on key psychometric properties. Method: Kaiser Permanente Southern California subsidized exchange members ( n = 1008) were randomly invited to complete a survey containing either the YCLS or the AHC tool, as well as other measures related to care experience and health. Healthcare use was measured through the electronic health record. Agreement between the AHC and YCLS was assessed using adjusted kappas for six domains (food – worry, food – pay, insecure housing, housing quality, transportation, utilities). To assess predictive validity, items on the AHC and YCLS were compared to self-rated health and receipt of a flu shot. Results: Responders ( n = 450) and non-responders ( n = 558) significantly differed on sex, language, and depression ( P < 0.05) but not anxiety, race/ethnicity, or healthcare use. Agreement between the AHC and YCLS tools was substantial on all items (kappas > 0.60) except for housing quality (kappa 0.52). Four out of six screening questions on the AHC tool and four out of seven on the YCLS tool were associated with self-rated health ( P < 0.03). No social needs were associated with flu shot receipt except utilities on the AHC tool ( P = 0.028). Conclusion: In this sample, the AHC and YCLS tools are similar in their ability to screen for social risks. Differences observed likely stem from the timeframe and wording of the questions, which can be used to guide selection in healthcare systems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the performance of two social risk screening tools in a vulnerable subpopulation

Lewis

Wellman

Walsh‐Bailey

et al. 2020

J Family Med Prim Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Subsequently they had to be summarised on a less concrete level to make them more easily comprehensible and comparable between the different papers and between the two constructs. To this purpose we used the domain classification of a recent review of SDH-assessment methods as a template ( 11 ). Moen and colleagues analysed nine commonly used SDH-assessment tools and identified 15 domains ( 11 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the last years, demand for improved SDH data at a patient level (e.g., 9 ) has led to the development of several assessment tools for clinical practice ( 1 , 10 ). Recently, an overview of such tools revealed 15 commonly assessed domains, such as safety, housing, and food insecurity ( 11 ). Application of these assessment methods have the potential to deepen knowledge about the causes and prevention of many illnesses ( 12 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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?

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMany 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.MethodsComprehensive 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionThe 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.

show abstract

“…They note the interconnectedness of risk domains, especially at the upstream level. Social risks often cluster together, and multiple risks may need to be addressed at the same time to create social stability [29,30]. Although recently a poly-social risk score has been proposed, more research is needed to implement such an approach, e.g., on acquiring appropriate data sets, privacy requirements, validation, etc.…”

Section: Framework #2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Determinants of Health 201 for Health Care: Plan, Do, Study, Act

Magnan

2021

NAM Perspectives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the social determinants of health (SDoH), social risk factors, and health-related social needs (HRSN) is critical to creating equitable health and care for all patients and communities. Health care systems need to understand their role in enacting relevant strategies, processes, and policies. One way that health care systems can explore what processes and policies work for their patients and their community is using the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) model. This discussion paper provides frameworks and approaches to using PDSA cycles to implement SDoH, social risk factors, and HRSN efforts, as a follow-up to the 2017 NAM Perspectives discussion paper Social Determinants of Health 101 for Health Care: Five Plus Five [1].

show abstract

A Review of Tools to Screen for Social Determinants of Health in the United States: A Practice Brief

Cited by 45 publications

References 20 publications

Comparing the performance of two social risk screening tools in a vulnerable subpopulation

Comparing the performance of two social risk screening tools in a vulnerable subpopulation

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?

Social Determinants of Health 201 for Health Care: Plan, Do, Study, Act

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About