The platform will undergo maintenance on Sep 14 at about 7:45 AM EST and will be unavailable for approximately 2 hours.
2020
DOI: 10.1186/s40814-020-00576-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Leveraging emergency department visits to connect older adults at risk for malnutrition and food insecurity to community resources: design and protocol development for the BRIDGE study

Abstract: Background: Malnutrition is a complex and costly condition that is common among older adults in the United States (US), with up to half at risk for malnutrition. Malnutrition is associated with several non-medical (i.e., social) factors, including food insecurity. Being at risk for both malnutrition and food insecurity likely identifies a subset of older adults with complex care needs and a high burden of social vulnerability (e.g., difficulty accessing or preparing meals, lack of transportation, and social is… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
(52 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We identified 29 relevant publications 25 observational studies 549 574 ; two interventional studies, 575 , 576 ; and two commentary publications. 577 , 578 Objectives among observational studies included the following: food insecurity prevalence (27%) 555 , 560 – 562 , 564 , 565 , 567 ; ED utilization (19%) 549 , 550 , 552 , 570 , 571 ; screening (8%), 553 , 572 ; and cost of care (12%). 550 , 559 , 561 Four (15%) publications explored the health consequences of food insecurity.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We identified 29 relevant publications 25 observational studies 549 574 ; two interventional studies, 575 , 576 ; and two commentary publications. 577 , 578 Objectives among observational studies included the following: food insecurity prevalence (27%) 555 , 560 – 562 , 564 , 565 , 567 ; ED utilization (19%) 549 , 550 , 552 , 570 , 571 ; screening (8%), 553 , 572 ; and cost of care (12%). 550 , 559 , 561 Four (15%) publications explored the health consequences of food insecurity.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Specifically, Table 2 provides information on patient population demographics and health conditions underpinning SDH clinical assessments, Table 3 lists various SDH screening tools used in clinical settings, Table 4 identifies various reasons for SDH integration, and finally, Supplementary Materials Table S1 lists the study design of the articles included in this review, method of integration, type of healthcare facility and its geographic location. Berkman-Syme Social Network Index, SNI (on social isolation) [56] BRFSS Survey-Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System (1-3-item food insecurity questions) [26] CLEAR Toolkit-Community Leadership on the Environment, Advocacy, and Resilience (four-step process for assessing patient vulnerability in a contextually appropriate and caring way) [86] Family Needs Screening Tool (28-33-item survey) [87] HARK Tool-Humiliation, Afraid, Rape, Kick (four-item survey) [56] Health Begins Upstream Risks Screening Tool (28-item survey) [87] Health Leads Social Needs Screening Toolkit (seven-item survey) [63,81] HITS Screening Tool-Hurt-Insult-Threaten-Scream (12-item survey) [55] HVS-Hunger Vital Sign (two-item survey) [26,58,68,75] iHELP/iHELLP Social History Tool-Income/Insurance-Hunger/Housing Conditions/Homeless-Education/Ensuring Safety-Legal Status, Literacy-Personal Safety (14-24-item survey) [76] iScreen Social Screening Questionnaire (46-item survey) [87] MST-Malnutrition Screening Tool (two-item survey) [68] NASEM-National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (one-item measure of financial strain) [56] NHIS-National Health Interview Survey, a CDC-NCHS SDH assessments in clinical settings focused primarily on vulnerable, disadvantaged, at-risk, and/or socially isolated patients. These patients came from communities experiencing persistent socio-economic challenges, material deprivation, food insecurity, housing instability, and/or toxic stress.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The next three most common screening tools were the Hunger Vital Sign (HVS), Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patient Assets, Risks, and Experiences (PRA-PARE), and the Safe Environment for Every Kid Parent Questionnaire-R (SEEK PQ-R). The two-item, single domain HVS, is a validated tool that has been used in medical and community settings nationwide for assessing food insecurity in families with young children, adolescents, and older adults [26,68,71,75]. PRAPARE is a 21-item, 21-domain, validated, and nationally standardized tool that evaluates 21 social drivers of health in five core categories, and is designed for adult respondents.…”
Section: Integrating Sdh In Clinical Settings By Study Design Methods...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The multidimensional nature of older adult food insecurity, and its association with multiple negative health outcomes, also means that clinicians have to address the consequences, often without recognizing that this is the underlying cause (36). Through understanding the drivers and the prevalence within a specific service area, clinical personnel can prioritize screening for food insecurity and referrals to appropriate services that can help maintain health and extend independent living (37). By assessing older adults for food insecurity, health care providers can help overcome stigmas, tailor clinical care to real patient needs, and potentially reduce health care costs by reducing preventable emergency visits and hospitalizations (38).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%