"We Need to Know These Things": Use Cases for Combined Social and Clinical Data Among Primary Care-Based Clinical and Social Care Providers.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: Primary care organizations are increasingly collecting data on patients' social risks, bringing forth an unprecedented opportunity to present combined health and social data that clinical and social care providers could leverage to improve patient care and outcomes. Little is known, however, about how these data could be used and what combinations of specific data elements are most helpful. We explored how primary care staff who provide clinical or social care services view potential benefits of and use cases for combined patient-level clinical and social data. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews or focus groups with 39 social and clinical care providers representing 6 healthcare organizations in San Diego County, California. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a deductive thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Overall, both clinical and social care providers noted the value of access to both types of data. Participants highlighted 3 benefits from integrating social and clinical data. The data could: (1) offer providers a more holistic view of patients' circumstances; (2) strengthen their ability to tailor care to patients' medical and social conditions concurrently; and (3) enhance coordination across care team members. Interviewees cited specific examples of ways social and clinical data could be paired to improve care. CONCLUSIONS: Social and clinical care providers alike envisioned multiple uses and benefits of accessing combined individual-level clinical and social data, highlighting the potential for practice and policy innovations to facilitate access and uptake of combined data. Future research should focus on ways to increase accessibility of cross-sector data and evaluate the impact of care informed by combined data on patient social and health outcomes.

"I would love to see these big institutions throwing their weight around": qualitative findings regarding health and social sector collaborations to address community-level socioeconomic adversity.

BACKGROUND: Health and social sector organizations are increasingly working together to mitigate socioeconomic adversity within their communities. We sought to learn about the motivations, experiences, and perspectives of organizations engaged in these collaborations. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured, 60-minute interviews with 34 leaders from 25 health and social sector organizations between January-April 2021. Interviews explored motivations, benefits and challenges, and ways in which health sector organizations can most effectively address community-level socioeconomic adversity. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed; themes were coded using Dedoose software. RESULTS: Partnerships were primarily motivated by mission-driven organizations and key health sector leaders who were interested in addressing root causes of poor health; policies such as certificate of need laws and value-based care incentives that aligned community-level investments with health sector organizations' financial interests facilitated these efforts. While partnerships were mostly regarded as mutually beneficial ways to increase impact (for the health sector) and resource access (for the social sector), social sector organizations voiced frustrations regarding the outsized expectations, unsustained interest, and lack of partnership from their health sector collaborators. Despite these frustrations, both health and social sector interviewees supported the health sector's continued involvement in community-level socioeconomic initiatives and expansion of policy and systems efforts. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-sector, community-level socioeconomic initiatives were mutually beneficial, but social sector organizations experienced more frustrations. Policy and organizational changes within the health sector can further mobilize and sustain support for these efforts.

Revising the Logic Model Behind Health Care's Social Care Investments.

Policy Points This article summarizes recent evidence on how increased awareness of patients' social conditions in the health care sector may influence health and health care utilization outcomes. Using this evidence, we propose a more expansive logic model to explain the impacts of social care programs and inform future social care program investments and evaluations.

If you build it, they may not come: Understanding factors influencing use of a community resource referral technology.

OBJECTIVE: Identify factors affecting the use of a community resource referral platform among local community-based organizations (CBOs) and test strategies to increase platform use. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Data sources included platform usage data and semi-structured interviews. The study took place in a small city in the Northeastern United States from 2020 to 2022. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed platform data and conducted interviews with local organizations and organizations in other communities to understand barriers to CBOs' use of the referral platform and identify strategies that might increase use. We then tested 4 strategies and assessed impacts via time trend analysis of platform usage and qualitative interviews. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Platform usage data were obtained from the platform. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with staff and leaders of 36 local CBOs and 9 external organizations. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Four years after launch, platform use remained relatively low. None of the tested strategies (data insight reports, a referral hub, tailored training, and a communication campaign) noticeably increased platform use. The main barrier to the use of the platform was the lack of perceived usefulness, mostly because existing processes for identifying resources and referring clients worked well enough and because many organizations were already required to use a client management or referral tool. Additional barriers included the lack of comfort with and, in some cases, active dislike of e-referrals, and lack of comfort with technology tools overall. Organizations that were most likely to find the platform useful and to use it were those that provided referrals for a wide range of needs and whose staff were not already familiar with local resources. CONCLUSIONS: Organizations seeking to implement referral platforms should not assume that local CBOs will automatically take up these platforms. For these platforms to succeed, much more attention needs to be paid to ensuring the platforms provide value to the CBOs they seek to engage.

Advancing health equity through social care interventions.

OBJECTIVE: To use evidence on addressing racism in social care intervention research to create a framework for advancing health equity for all populations with marginalized social identities (e.g., race, gender, and sexual orientation). Such groups have disproportionate social needs (e.g., food insecurity) and negative social determinants of health (SDOH; e.g., poverty). We recommend how the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) could advance health equity for marginalized populations through social care research and care delivery. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: This commentary is informed by a literature review of social care interventions that were affiliated with healthcare systems; input from health equity researchers, policymakers, and community leaders attending the AHRQ Health Equity Summit; and consensus of the authors. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We recommend that AHRQ: (1) create an ecosystem that values research on SDOH and the effectiveness and implementation of social care interventions in the healthcare sector; (2) work with other federal agencies to (a) develop position statements with actionable recommendations about racism and other systems that perpetuate marginalization based on social identity and (b) develop aligned, complementary approaches to research and care delivery that address social marginalization; (3) advance both inclusive care delivery and inclusive research teams; (4) advance understanding of racism as a social determinant of health and effective strategies to mitigate its adverse impact on health; (5) advance the creation and scaling of effective strategies for addressing SDOH in healthcare systems, particularly in co-creation with community partners; and (6) require social care intervention researchers to use methods that advance our understanding of social health equity. CONCLUSIONS: AHRQ, as a federal agency, could help advance health equity using a range of strategies, including using the agency's levers to ensure AHRQ stakeholders examine and address the unique experiences of socially marginalized populations in SDOH and social care intervention research.

"Because There's Experts That Do That": Lessons Learned by Health Care Organizations When Partnering with Community Organizations.

BACKGROUND: Health care organizations' partnerships with community-based organizations (CBOs) are increasingly viewed as key to improving patients' social needs (e.g., food, housing, and economic insecurity). Despite this reliance on CBOs, little research explores the relationships that health care organizations develop with CBOs. OBJECTIVE: Understand how health care organizations interact with CBOs to implement social care. DESIGN: Thirty-three semi-structured telephone interviews collected April-July 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Administrators at 29 diverse health care organizations with active programming related to improving patients' social needs. Organizations ranged from multi-state systems to single-site practices and differed in structure, size, ownership, and geography. MEASURES: Structure and goals of health care organizations' relationship with CBOs. RESULTS: Most health care organizations (26 out of 29) relied on CBOs to improve their patients' social needs. Health care organization's goals for social care activities drove their relationships with CBOs. First, one-way referrals to CBOs did not require formal relationships or frequent interactions with CBOs. Second, when health care organizations contracted with CBOs to deliver discrete services, leadership-level relationships were required to launch programs while staff-to-staff interactions were used to maintain programs. Third, some health care organizations engaged in community-level activities with multiple CBOs which required more expansive, ongoing leadership-level partnerships. Administrators highlighted 4 recommendations for collaborating with CBOs: (1) engage early; (2) establish shared purpose for the collaboration; (3) determine who is best suited to lead activities; and (4) avoid making assumptions about partner organizations. CONCLUSIONS: Health care organizations tailored the intensity of their relationships with CBOs based on their goals. Administrators viewed informal relationships with limited interactions between organizations sufficient for many activities. Our study offers key insights into how and when health care organizations may want to develop partnerships with CBOs.

Investigating the Relative Influence of Romantic Sex Partners and Close Friends on Adolescent Alcohol and Marijuana Use.

A large body of research has identified peer exposure as a key factor driving adolescent substance use. However, findings on the role of sex partners are less robust and mixed. This study aims to fill this gap by examining the independent contribution of close friends' and sex partners' alcohol and marijuana use on adolescents' use of these substances. A secondary data analysis of social network data collected in 2000-2002 from a household sample of African American youth (14-19 years old) in the Bayview and Hunter's Point neighborhoods of San Francisco was conducted. Index participants and their nominated close friends and romantic sex partners (N = 104 triads) self-reported recent alcohol and marijuana use (defined as any use in the past 3 months). Generalized estimated equations were used to estimate the independent association between adolescent's recent substance use and their friend's and sex partner's use. Adolescents with a marijuana-using romantic sex partner had a nearly six-fold higher odds of using marijuana compared to adolescents with a non-using partner, controlling for close friend's marijuana use and other confounders [OR:5.69, 95%CI: 1.94, 16.7]; no association with close friend's marijuana use was found. A similar pattern was observed for alcohol use. Adolescents with an alcohol-using romantic sex partner had increased odds of using alcohol compared to adolescents with a non-using partner, controlling for close friend's alcohol use and other confounders [OR:2.40, 95%CI: 1.02, 5.63]; no association with close friend's alcohol use was found. Romantic sex partners may play a unique and significant role in adolescent substance use. Peer-focused interventions may be more effective if they consider romantic sex partners. Future research should consider the role of romantic sex partners in changing social context related to substance use from adolescence to young adulthood.

Racial Health Equity and Social Needs Interventions: A Review of a Scoping Review.

Importance: Social needs interventions aim to improve health outcomes and mitigate inequities by addressing health-related social needs, such as lack of transportation or food insecurity. However, it is not clear whether these studies are reducing racial or ethnic inequities. Objective: To understand how studies of interventions addressing social needs among multiracial or multiethnic populations conceptualize and analyze differential intervention outcomes by race or ethnicity. Evidence Review: Sources included a scoping review of systematic searches of PubMed and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 1995, through November 29, 2021, expert suggestions, and hand searches of key citations. Eligible studies evaluated interventions addressing social needs; reported behavioral, health, or utilization outcomes or harms; and were conducted in multiracial or multiethnic populations. Two reviewers independently assessed titles, abstracts, and full text for inclusion. The team developed a framework to assess whether the study was "conceptually thoughtful" for understanding root causes of racial health inequities (ie, noted that race or ethnicity are markers of exposure to racism) and whether analyses were "analytically informative" for advancing racial health equity research (ie, examined differential intervention impacts by race or ethnicity). Findings: Of 152 studies conducted in multiracial or multiethnic populations, 44 studies included race or ethnicity in their analyses; of these, only 4 (9%) were conceptually thoughtful. Twenty-one studies (14%) were analytically informative. Seven of 21 analytically informative studies reported differences in outcomes by race or ethnicity, whereas 14 found no differences. Among the 7 that found differential outcomes, 4 found the interventions were associated with improved outcomes for minoritized racial or ethnic populations or reduced inequities between minoritized and White populations. No studies were powered to detect differences. Conclusions and Relevance: In this review of a scoping review, studies of social needs interventions in multiracial or multiethnic populations were rarely conceptually thoughtful for understanding root causes of racial health inequities and infrequently conducted informative analyses on intervention effectiveness by race or ethnicity. Future work should use a theoretically sound conceptualization of how race (as a proxy for racism) affects social drivers of health and use this understanding to ensure social needs interventions benefit minoritized racial and ethnic groups facing social and structural barriers to health.

Resource Brokering: Efforts to Assist Patients With Housing, Transportation, and Economic Needs in Primary Care Settings.

PURPOSE: Clinicians and policy makers are exploring the role of primary care in improving patients' social conditions, yet little research examines strategies used in clinical settings to assist patients with social needs. METHODS: Study used semistructured interviews with leaders and frontline staff at 29 diverse health care organizations with active programs used to address patients' social needs. Interviews focused on how organizations develop and implement case management-style programs to assist patients with social needs including staffing, assistance intensity, and use of referrals to community-based organizations (CBOs). RESULTS: Organizations used case management programs to assist patients with social needs through referrals to CBOs and regular follow-up with patients. About one-half incorporated care for social needs into established case management programs and the remaining described standalone programs developed specifically to address social needs independent of clinical needs. Referrals were the foundation for assistance and included preprinted resource lists, patient-tailored lists, and warm handoffs to the CBOs. While all organizations referred patients to CBOs, some also provided more intense services such as assistance completing patients' applications for services or conducting home visits. Organizations described 4 operational challenges in addressing patients' social needs: (1) effectively engaging CBOs; (2) obtaining buy-in from clinical staff; (3) considering patients' perspectives; and (4) ensuring program sustainability. CONCLUSION: As the US health care sector faces pressure to improve quality while managing costs, many health care organizations will likely develop or rely on case management approaches to address patients' social conditions. Health care organizations may require support to address the key operational challenges.Visual abstract.

Assessment of Social Risk Factors and Interest in Receiving Health Care-Based Social Assistance Among Adult Patients and Adult Caregivers of Pediatric Patients.

Importance: Health care organizations are increasingly incorporating social risk screening into patient care. Studies have reported wide variations in patients' interest in receiving health care-based assistance for identified social risks. However, no study to date has examined the factors associated with patients' interest in receiving assistance, including whether interest in receiving assistance varies based on specific patient demographic characteristics. Targeted research on this topic could improve the success of health care-based programs that offer social care services. Objective: To identify participant characteristics associated with interest in receiving health care-based social risk assistance. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted in 7 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments in 9 US states between July 2, 2018, and February 13, 2019. A convenience sample of adult patients and adult caregivers of pediatric patients completed a screening survey that measured social risk factors and participants' interest in receiving assistance for identified social risks. Participants were randomly selected to receive 1 of 2 versions of the survey, which differed based on the order in which questions about social risks and interest in receiving assistance were presented. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the associations between covariates and participants' interest in receiving assistance, stratified by social risk screening results. Data were analyzed from September 8, 2019, to July 30, 2020. Exposures: Social risk screening questions assessed risk factors comprising housing, food, transportation, utilities, and exposure to interpersonal violence. Additional questions assessed participants' interest in receiving assistance and their perspectives on health care-based social risk screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participant interest in receiving health care-based social risk assistance. Results: A total of 1021 adult participants with complete survey responses were included in the analysis. Of those, 709 of 1004 participants (70.6%) were female, and 544 of 1007 participants (54.0%) were aged 18 to 44 years. Overall, 353 of 662 participants (53.3%) with positive screening results for 1 or more social risk factors were interested in receiving assistance, whereas 31 of 359 participants (8.6%) with negative screening results for all social risks were interested in receiving assistance. Participants with positive screening results for 1 or more social risk factors had a higher likelihood of being interested in receiving assistance if they answered the question about interest in receiving assistance before they answered the questions about social risk factors (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.48; 95% CI, 1.05-2.07), had positive screening results for a higher number of social risk factors (aOR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.68-3.42), reported lower household income levels (aOR, 7.78; 95% CI, 2.96-20.44), or self-identified as having non-Hispanic Black ancestry (aOR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.37-3.60). Among those with negative screening results for all social risk factors, the interest in receiving assistance was higher if the participants reported lower household income levels (aOR, 12.38; 95% CI, 2.94-52.15), previous exposure to health care-based social risk screening (aOR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.47-3.74), higher perceived appropriateness of social risk screening (aOR, 3.69; 95% CI, 1.08-12.55), or worse health status (aOR, 4.22; 95% CI, 1.09-16.31). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, multiple factors were associated with participants' interest in receiving social risk assistance. These findings may have implications for how and when social risk assistance is offered to patients. As the health care system's role in addressing social risk factors evolves, an understanding of patients' perspectives regarding screening and their interest in receiving assistance may be important to implementing patient-centered interventions.

Implementing Community Resource Referral Technology: Facilitators And Barriers Described By Early Adopters.

Health care organizations are increasingly implementing programs to address patients' social conditions. To support these efforts, new technology platforms have emerged to facilitate referrals to community social services organizations. To understand the functionalities of these platforms and identify the lessons learned by their early adopters in health care, we reviewed nine platforms that were on the market in 2018 and interviewed representatives from thirty-five early-adopter health care organizations. We identified key informants through solicited expert recommendations and web searches. With minor variations, all platforms in the sample provided similar core functionalities: screening for social risks, a resource directory, referral management, care coordination, privacy protection, systems integration, and reporting and analytics. Early adopters reported three key implementation challenges: engaging community partners, managing internal change processes, and ensuring compliance with privacy regulations. We conclude that early engagement with social services partners, funding models that support both direct and indirect costs, and stronger evidence of effectiveness together could help advance platform adoption.

Health And Human Services Integration: Generating Sustained Health And Equity Improvements.

Concurrent increases in evidence about social determinants of health and the use of value-based health care incentives are driving new efforts to integrate health care and human services. Despite expectations that the integration of these complementary services could improve health, reduce health inequities, and reduce potentially avoidable health care use and costs, current evidence on the effectiveness, implementation, and sustainability of such cross-sectoral partnerships is sparse and mixed. To realize the potential of health care and human services integration, knowledge gaps in these key areas must be filled. In doing so, particular attention needs to be paid to understanding how power and resource differentials between organizations in the two sectors influence integration approaches and their impacts. Furthermore, increased societal investments in resources to address social needs are likely necessary for integrative initiatives to yield desired individual- and population-level impacts.

Improving Social Needs Intervention Research: Key Questions for Advancing the Field.

Spurred by accumulated evidence documenting how social determinants of health shape health outcomes as well as the push for better value, the healthcare sector is embracing interventions that address patients' health-related social needs. An increasing number of healthcare organizations and payers are experimenting with strategies to identify needs and connect patients to resources that address identified needs with the goal of improving health outcomes, reducing avoidable utilization of costly health services, and improving health equity. Although many studies link social factors to health, relatively little published research exists about how the healthcare sector can effectively intervene to help identify and address social needs. This paper summarizes emerging evidence and identifies key areas where more research is needed to advance implementation and policy development. Although some healthcare-based social needs interventions have been shown to improve health and reduce avoidable utilization, important gaps remain in terms of comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of social needs intervention approaches. Additionally, the field would benefit from an increased understanding of mechanisms of action to maximize practitioners' ability to tailor interventions. More research is also needed to guard against unintended consequences and ensure these interventions reduce health inequities. Finally, implementation science research should identify supports and incentives for adoption of effective interventions. Focusing both public and private research efforts on these evidence gaps can help advance identification of interventions that maximize both health equity and healthcare value. SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION: This article is part of a supplement entitled Identifying and Intervening on Social Needs in Clinical Settings: Evidence and Evidence Gaps, which is sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kaiser Permanente, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Part I: A Quantitative Study of Social Risk Screening Acceptability in Patients and Caregivers.

INTRODUCTION: Despite recent growth in healthcare delivery-based social risk screening, little is known about patient perspectives on these activities. This study evaluates patient and caregiver acceptability of social risk screening. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of 969 adult patients and adult caregivers of pediatric patients recruited from 6 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments across 9 states. Survey items included the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Accountable Health Communities' social risk screening tool and questions about appropriateness of screening and comfort with including social risk data in electronic health records. Logistic regressions evaluated covariate associations with acceptability measures. Data collection occurred from July 2018 to February 2019; data analyses were conducted in February‒March 2019. RESULTS: Screening was reported as appropriate by 79% of participants; 65% reported comfort including social risks in electronic health records. In adjusted models, higher perceived screening appropriateness was associated with previous exposure to healthcare-based social risk screening (AOR=1.82, 95% CI=1.16, 2.88), trust in clinicians (AOR=1.55, 95% CI=1.00, 2.40), and recruitment from a primary care setting (AOR=1.70, 95% CI=1.23, 2.38). Lower appropriateness was associated with previous experience of healthcare discrimination (AOR=0.66, 95% CI=0.45, 0.95). Higher comfort with electronic health record documentation was associated with previously receiving assistance with social risks in a healthcare setting (AOR=1.47, 95% CI=1.04, 2.07). CONCLUSIONS: A strong majority of adult patients and caregivers of pediatric patients reported that social risk screening was appropriate. Most also felt comfortable including social risk data in electronic health records. Although multiple factors influenced acceptability, the effects were moderate to small. These findings suggest that lack of patient acceptability is unlikely to be a major implementation barrier. SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION: This article is part of a supplement entitled Identifying and Intervening on Social Needs in Clinical Settings: Evidence and Evidence Gaps, which is sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kaiser Permanente, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Part II: A Qualitative Study of Social Risk Screening Acceptability in Patients and Caregivers.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to better understand patient and caregiver perspectives on social risk screening across different healthcare settings. METHODS: As part of a mixed-methods multisite study, the authors conducted semistructured interviews with a subset of adult patients and adult caregivers of pediatric patients who had completed the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Accountable Health Communities social risk screening tool between July 2018 and February 2019. Interviews, conducted in English or Spanish, asked about reactions to screening, screening acceptability, preferences for administration, prior screening experiences that informed perspectives, and expectations for social assistance. Basic thematic analysis and constant comparative methods were used to code and develop themes. RESULTS: Fifty interviews were conducted across 10 study sites in 9 states, including 6 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments. There was broad consensus among interviewees across all sites that social risk screening was acceptable. The following 4 main themes emerged: (1) participants believed screening for social risks is important; (2) participants expressed insight into the connections between social risks and overall health; (3) participants emphasized the importance of patient-centered implementation of social risk screening; and (4) participants recognized limits to the healthcare sector's capacity to address or resolve social risks. CONCLUSIONS: Despite gaps in the availability of social risk-related interventions in healthcare settings, patient-centered social risk screening, including empathy and attention to privacy, may strengthen relationships between patients and healthcare teams. SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION: This article is part of a supplement entitled Identifying and Intervening on Social Needs in Clinical Settings: Evidence and Evidence Gaps, which is sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kaiser Permanente, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Interventions Addressing Food Insecurity in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Based on the recognition that food insecurity (FI) is associated with poor health across the life course, many US health systems are actively exploring ways to help patients access food resources. This review synthesizes findings from studies examining the effects of health care-based interventions designed to reduce FI. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published from January 2000 through September 2018 that described health care- based FI interventions. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated and pooled when appropriate. Study quality was rated using Grading Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria and examined a range of FI interventions and outcomes. Based on study design and sample size, 74% were rated low or very low quality. Studies of referral-based interventions reported moderate increases in patient food program referrals (SMD = 0.67, 95% CI, 0.36-0.98; SMD = 1.42, 95% CI, 0.76-2.08) and resource use (pooled SMD = 0.54, 95% CI, 0.31-0.78). Studies describing interventions providing food or vouchers reported mixed results for the actual change in fruit/vegetable intake, averaging to no impact when pooled (-0.03, 95% CI, -0.66 to 0.61). Few studies evaluated health or utilization outcomes; these generally reported small but positive effects. CONCLUSIONS: Although a growing base of literature explores health care-based FI interventions, the low number and low quality of studies limit inferences about their effectiveness. More rigorous evaluation of FI interventions that includes health and utilization outcomes is needed to better understand roles for the health care sector in addressing FI.

Social Determinants of Health: What's a Healthcare System to Do?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A growing literature regarding the health consequences of social risks, such as substandard housing and food insecurity, combined with increased adoption of risk-based payment models have contributed to a wave of healthcare sector initiatives focused on the social determinants of health. Yet decisions about how and when to address adverse social conditions are frequently guided by limited information about potential interventions and a lack of data on their effectiveness. We describe four complementary strategies that healthcare leaders can pursue to intervene on social adversity, split between patient care and community-level approaches. Patient care strategies rely on data about patients' social risks to adapt medical care or improve patients' social circumstances directly. Community-level strategies focus on improving the broader health and well-being of the local population through a mix of direct investments in communities and collaboration through multisector partnerships. Each approach presents unique incentives and challenges, and healthcare systems wanting to address social adversity may adopt one or more. Understanding the range of potential choices may help healthcare leaders make more informed choices in response to patient needs and changing payment and policy initiatives.

Identifying Food Insecurity in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Scoping Review of the Evidence.

This systematic scoping review explores evidence on food insecurity (FI) screening measures, acceptability, and program implementation in health care settings. Validation studies on brief screening tools suggest that instruments exist that adequately measure the construct of FI. Patients and clinicians found FI screening acceptable in a range of clinical settings, though studies are not high quality and rarely reflect substantial patient diversity. Targeted interventions successfully increased screening rates and reduced screening barriers. More research is needed to understand implementation and effectiveness of FI screening in diverse populations to ensure that evolving practices in this area do not widen health inequities.