Health-related social needs, methods, and concerns for a polysocial risk score: an expert panel.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES American Journal of Managed Care Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.37765/ajmc.2025.89676
Joshua R Vest, Cassidy McNamee, Paul I Musey
{"title":"Health-related social needs, methods, and concerns for a polysocial risk score: an expert panel.","authors":"Joshua R Vest, Cassidy McNamee, Paul I Musey","doi":"10.37765/ajmc.2025.89676","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>A polysocial risk score, which summarizes multiple health-related social needs (HRSNs) into a single likelihood of risk, could support more effective population health management. Nevertheless, a polysocial risk score faces uncertainties and challenges due to the HRSNs' differing etiologies and interventions, cooccurrence, and variation in information availability.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A national expert panel provided guidance on the development and potential application of a polysocial risk score in a 3-round Delphi process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Expert panel members from across the US included physicians (n = 8), social service professionals and staff (n = 9), and patients (n = 6). Round 1 obtained an initial sense of the importance of HRSNs for general health and well-being and total health care cost. Panelists also suggested additional HRSNs. Responses served as discussion points for round 2, during which 5 focus groups explored how HRSNs should be ranked, additional HRSNs to include, timing of measurements, management of nonresponse and missing data, and concerns about bias and equity. We analyzed the transcripts using a consensus coding approach. Panelists then completed a follow-up survey (round 3).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Panelists identified 17 HRSNs relevant to health and well-being for inclusion in a polysocial risk score. Methodology concerns included the sources and quality of data, nonrandom missing information, data timeliness, and the need for different risk scores by population. Panelists also raised concerns about potential bias and misapplication of a polysocial risk score.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A polysocial risk score is a potentially useful addition to the growing methodologies to better understand and address HRSNs. Nevertheless, development is potentially complicated and fraught with challenges.</p>","PeriodicalId":50808,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Managed Care","volume":"31 2","pages":"55-62"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Managed Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37765/ajmc.2025.89676","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: A polysocial risk score, which summarizes multiple health-related social needs (HRSNs) into a single likelihood of risk, could support more effective population health management. Nevertheless, a polysocial risk score faces uncertainties and challenges due to the HRSNs' differing etiologies and interventions, cooccurrence, and variation in information availability.

Study design: A national expert panel provided guidance on the development and potential application of a polysocial risk score in a 3-round Delphi process.

Methods: Expert panel members from across the US included physicians (n = 8), social service professionals and staff (n = 9), and patients (n = 6). Round 1 obtained an initial sense of the importance of HRSNs for general health and well-being and total health care cost. Panelists also suggested additional HRSNs. Responses served as discussion points for round 2, during which 5 focus groups explored how HRSNs should be ranked, additional HRSNs to include, timing of measurements, management of nonresponse and missing data, and concerns about bias and equity. We analyzed the transcripts using a consensus coding approach. Panelists then completed a follow-up survey (round 3).

Results: Panelists identified 17 HRSNs relevant to health and well-being for inclusion in a polysocial risk score. Methodology concerns included the sources and quality of data, nonrandom missing information, data timeliness, and the need for different risk scores by population. Panelists also raised concerns about potential bias and misapplication of a polysocial risk score.

Conclusions: A polysocial risk score is a potentially useful addition to the growing methodologies to better understand and address HRSNs. Nevertheless, development is potentially complicated and fraught with challenges.

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
目的:多重社会风险评分将多种与健康相关的社会需求(HRSN)归纳为单一的风险可能性,可支持更有效的人群健康管理。然而,由于与健康相关的社会需求(HRSN)的病因和干预措施不同、共存性以及信息可用性的差异,多重社会风险评分面临着不确定性和挑战:研究设计:一个全国性的专家小组通过三轮德尔菲程序为多社会风险评分的开发和潜在应用提供指导:专家小组成员来自美国各地,包括医生(8 人)、社会服务专业人员和工作人员(9 人)以及患者(6 人)。第一轮初步了解了 HRSN 对总体健康和福祉以及医疗保健总成本的重要性。小组成员还提出了更多的 HRSN 建议。在第二轮讨论中,5 个焦点小组探讨了如何对 HRSN 进行排序、应纳入的其他 HRSN、测量的时间安排、非响应和缺失数据的管理,以及对偏差和公平性的关注。我们采用共识编码方法对讨论记录进行了分析。小组成员随后完成了后续调查(第三轮):结果:小组成员确定了 17 项与健康和幸福相关的 HRSN,以纳入多社会风险评分。方法方面的问题包括数据的来源和质量、非随机缺失信息、数据的及时性以及按人群划分不同风险评分的必要性。专家组成员还对多社会风险评分的潜在偏差和误用提出了担忧:多社会风险评分是对日益增多的更好地理解和处理 HRSN 的方法的一种潜在有益补充。然而,其开发过程可能十分复杂且充满挑战。
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
American Journal of Managed Care
American Journal of Managed Care 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
177
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Managed Care is an independent, peer-reviewed publication dedicated to disseminating clinical information to managed care physicians, clinical decision makers, and other healthcare professionals. Its aim is to stimulate scientific communication in the ever-evolving field of managed care. The American Journal of Managed Care addresses a broad range of issues relevant to clinical decision making in a cost-constrained environment and examines the impact of clinical, management, and policy interventions and programs on healthcare and economic outcomes.
期刊最新文献
Health disparities in HIV care and strategies for improving equitable access to care. Financial navigation: lessons from a program in practice. Veterans Health Administration benefit value has little effect on reliance. Bundled payment impacts uptake of prescribed home health care. Development of multipayer claims-based emergency department episodes of care.
×
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