A Secondary Data Analysis of Technology Access as a Determinant of Health and Impediment in Social Needs Screening and Referral Processes

Sara G. Bybee PhD , Nasser Sharareh PhD , Jia-Wen Guo PhD , Brenda Luther PhD , Ernest Grigorian BS , Ching-Yu Wang MSN , Bob Wong PhD , Andrea S. Wallace PhD
{"title":"A Secondary Data Analysis of Technology Access as a Determinant of Health and Impediment in Social Needs Screening and Referral Processes","authors":"Sara G. Bybee PhD ,&nbsp;Nasser Sharareh PhD ,&nbsp;Jia-Wen Guo PhD ,&nbsp;Brenda Luther PhD ,&nbsp;Ernest Grigorian BS ,&nbsp;Ching-Yu Wang MSN ,&nbsp;Bob Wong PhD ,&nbsp;Andrea S. Wallace PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.focus.2024.100189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Although health systems increasingly integrate social needs screening and referrals into routine care, the effectiveness of these interventions and for whom they work remains unclear.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Patients (N=4,608) seen in the emergency department were screened for social needs (e.g., transportation, housing, food) and offered an opportunity to receive outreach from community service specialists.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Among 453 patients with 1 or more social needs who requested assistance, outreach specialists connected with 95 (21.0%). Patients preferred to be contacted through their telephone (<em>n</em>=21, 60.2%), email (<em>n</em>=126, 28.0%), someone else's telephone (<em>n</em>=30, 6.7%), or first by telephone followed by email (<em>n</em>=23, 5.1%). Preferred contact method varied by patient age; endorsement of unmet transportation, housing, and utility needs; receipt of service outreach; and differences in emergency department utilization from the 6 months before the index visit to the 6 months after.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Because limited access to a stable telephone or internet connection may prevent patients from connecting with resource referrals, social needs interventions may not benefit the most underserved populations who are at the highest risk of negative health outcomes. Future research should investigate whether communication preferences are an important indicator of needs and how to adapt social needs screening and referral processes so that they are more accessible to populations who may experience more frequent disruptions in methods utilized for digital communication.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72142,"journal":{"name":"AJPM focus","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773065424000087/pdfft?md5=e58b0043014556aafcf9b2e22e057e28&pid=1-s2.0-S2773065424000087-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJPM focus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773065424000087","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Although health systems increasingly integrate social needs screening and referrals into routine care, the effectiveness of these interventions and for whom they work remains unclear.

Methods

Patients (N=4,608) seen in the emergency department were screened for social needs (e.g., transportation, housing, food) and offered an opportunity to receive outreach from community service specialists.

Results

Among 453 patients with 1 or more social needs who requested assistance, outreach specialists connected with 95 (21.0%). Patients preferred to be contacted through their telephone (n=21, 60.2%), email (n=126, 28.0%), someone else's telephone (n=30, 6.7%), or first by telephone followed by email (n=23, 5.1%). Preferred contact method varied by patient age; endorsement of unmet transportation, housing, and utility needs; receipt of service outreach; and differences in emergency department utilization from the 6 months before the index visit to the 6 months after.

Conclusions

Because limited access to a stable telephone or internet connection may prevent patients from connecting with resource referrals, social needs interventions may not benefit the most underserved populations who are at the highest risk of negative health outcomes. Future research should investigate whether communication preferences are an important indicator of needs and how to adapt social needs screening and referral processes so that they are more accessible to populations who may experience more frequent disruptions in methods utilized for digital communication.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对技术获取作为健康决定因素以及社会需求筛查和转诊过程障碍的二手数据分析
导言尽管医疗系统越来越多地将社会需求筛查和转介纳入常规护理,但这些干预措施的有效性以及对哪些人有效仍不清楚。方法对急诊科就诊的患者(N=4,608)进行社会需求筛查(如交通、住房、食物),并为其提供接受社区服务专家外展服务的机会。结果在453名有1项或多项社会需求并请求援助的患者中,外展专家与95名患者(21.0%)取得了联系。患者希望通过自己的电话(21 人,60.2%)、电子邮件(126 人,28.0%)、他人的电话(30 人,6.7%)或先电话后电子邮件(23 人,5.1%)与他们取得联系。首选联系方法因患者年龄、对未满足的交通、住房和公用事业需求的认可程度、接受服务推广的情况以及急诊室使用率(从指数就诊前 6 个月到就诊后 6 个月)的不同而不同。结论由于患者无法获得稳定的电话或互联网连接,可能无法与资源转介建立联系,因此社会需求干预措施可能无法惠及最缺乏服务的人群,而这些人群面临负面健康结果的风险最高。未来的研究应探讨交流偏好是否是需求的重要指标,以及如何调整社会需求筛查和转介流程,使其更容易被那些数字交流方式经常中断的人群所接受。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
AJPM focus
AJPM focus Health, Public Health and Health Policy
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board and Journal Information Work-Related Factors Associated With Psychological Distress Among Grocery Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic Lifestyle Differences in the Metabolic Comorbidity Score of Adult Population From South Asian Countries: A Cross-Sectional Study Corrigendum: Associations of Historical Redlining With BMI and Waist Circumference in Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Physicians’ Self-Reported Knowledge and Behaviors Related to Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain and Diagnosing Opioid Use Disorder, DocStyles, 2020
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1