Associations between Social Adversity and Biomarkers of Inflammation, Stress, and Aging in Children.

BACKGROUND: Prior work has found relationships between childhood social adversity and biomarkers of stress, but knowledge gaps remain. To help address these gaps, we explored associations between social adversity and biomarkers of inflammation (interleukin-1ß [IL-1ß], IL-6, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor-alpha [TNF-α], and salivary cytokine hierarchical "clusters" based on the three interleukins), neuroendocrine function (cortisol, cortisone, dehydroepiandrosterone, testosterone, and progesterone), neuromodulation (N-arachidonoylethanolamine, stearoylethanolamine, oleoylethanolamide, and palmitoylethanolamide), and epigenetic aging (Pediatric-Buccal-Epigenetic clock). METHODS: We collected biomarker samples of children ages 0-17 recruited from an acute care pediatrics clinic and examined their associations with caregiver-endorsed education, income, social risk factors, and cumulative adversity. We calculated regression-adjusted means for each biomarker and compared associations with social factors using Wald tests. We used logistic regression to predict being in the highest cytokine cluster based on social predictors. RESULTS: Our final sample included 537 children but varied based on each biomarker. Cumulative social adversity was significantly associated with having higher levels of all inflammatory markers and with cortisol, displaying a U-shaped distribution. There were no significant relationships between cumulative social adversity and cortisone, neuromodulation biomarkers or epigenetic aging. CONCLUSION: Our findings support prior work suggesting that social stress exposures contribute to increased inflammation in children. IMPACT: Our study is one of the largest studies examining associations between childhood social adversity and biomarkers of inflammation, neuroendocrine function, neuromodulation, and epigenetic aging. It is one of the largest studies to link childhood social adversity to biomarkers of inflammation, and the first of which we are aware to link cumulative social adversity to cytokine clusters. It is also one of the largest studies to examine associations between steroids and epigenetic aging among children, and one of the only studies of which we are aware to examine associations between social adversity and endocannabinoids among children. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02746393.

Perceived Appropriateness of Assessing for Health-related Socioeconomic Risks Among Adult Patients with Cancer.

Cancer treatment can trigger or exacerbate health-related socioeconomic risks (HRSR; food/housing insecurity, transportation/utilities difficulties, and interpersonal violence). The American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute recommend HRSR screening and referral, but little research has examined the perceptions of patients with cancer on the appropriateness of HRSR screening in healthcare settings. We examined whether HRSR status, desire for assistance with HRSRs, and sociodemographic and health care-related factors were associated with perceived appropriateness of HRSR screening in health care settings and comfort with HRSR documentation in electronic health records (EHR). A convenience sample of adult patients with cancer at two outpatient clinics completed self-administered surveys. We used χ 2 and Fisher exact tests to test for significant associations. The sample included 154 patients (72% female, 90% ages 45 years or older). Thirty-six percent reported ≥1 HRSRs and 27% desired assistance with HRSRs. Overall, 80% thought it was appropriate to assess for HRSRs in health care settings. The distributions of HRSR status and sociodemographic characteristics were similar among people who perceived screening to be appropriate and those who did not. Participants who perceived screening as appropriate were three times as likely to report prior experience with HRSR screening (31% vs. 10%, P = 0.01). Moreover, 60% felt comfortable having HRSRs documented in the EHR. Comfort with EHR documentation of HRSRs was significantly higher among patients desiring assistance with HRSRs (78%) compared with those who did not (53%, P < 0.01). While initiatives for HRSR screening are likely to be seen by patients with cancer as appropriate, concerns may remain over electronic documentation of HRSRs. Significance: National organizations recommend addressing HRSRs such as food/housing insecurity, transportation/utilities difficulties, and interpersonal violence among patients with cancer. In our study, most patients with cancer perceived screening for HRSRs in clinical settings as appropriate. Meanwhile, concerns may remain over the documentation of HRSRs in EHRs.

Social Risk Screening and Response Equity: Assessment by Race, Ethnicity, and Language in Community Health Centers.

INTRODUCTION: Little has previously been reported about the implementation of social risk screening across racial/ethnic/language groups. To address this knowledge gap, the associations between race/ethnicity/language, social risk screening, and patient-reported social risks were examined among adult patients at community health centers. METHODS: Patient- and encounter-level data from 2016 to 2020 from 651 community health centers in 21 U.S. states were used; data were extracted from a shared Epic electronic health record and analyzed between December 2020 and February 2022. In adjusted logistic regression analyses stratified by language, robust sandwich variance SE estimators were applied with clustering on patient's primary care facility. RESULTS: Social risk screening occurred at 30% of health centers; 11% of eligible adult patients were screened. Screening and reported needs varied significantly by race/ethnicity/language. Black Hispanic and Black non-Hispanic patients were approximately twice as likely to be screened, and Hispanic White patients were 28% less likely to be screened than non-Hispanic White patients. Hispanic Black patients were 87% less likely to report social risks than non-Hispanic White patients. Among patients who preferred a language other than English or Spanish, Black Hispanic patients were 90% less likely to report social needs than non-Hispanic White patients. CONCLUSIONS: Social risk screening documentation and patient reports of social risks differed by race/ethnicity/language in community health centers. Although social care initiatives are intended to promote health equity, inequitable screening practices could inadvertently undermine this goal. Future implementation research should explore strategies for equitable screening and related interventions.

Awareness, Adjustment, Assistance, Alignment, and Advocacy: Operationalizing Social Determinants of Health Topics in Undergraduate Medical Education Curricula.

Social and economic factors, such as those related to food, housing, and transportation, are major drivers of health and health inequities. Multiple national professional organizations have articulated roles for physicians in identifying and addressing social determinants of health (SDOH) and the need to include SDOH in all stages of physician education. Despite encouragement from these professional organizations, medical schools still do not routinely offer SDOH education alongside basic and clinical sciences curricula. A recent national expert consensus process identified priority SDOH knowledge domains and professional skills for medical students but lacked an organizing schema and specific pedagogical examples to help translate prioritized skills into routine pedagogical practice. One such schema is the 5As framework developed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which elaborates on 5 strategies to strengthen social care: awareness, adjustment, assistance, alignment, and advocacy. In this article, the authors highlight and provide examples of how mapping SDOH skills to the 5As framework can help educators meaningfully operationalize SDOH topics into specific curricular activities during the preclinical and clinical stages of undergraduate medical education. As a foundational first step in this direction, medical schools should conduct an internal curricular review of social care content (ideally mapped to the 5As framework) and identify opportunities to integrate these topics into existing courses when relevant (e.g., in social medicine, population health, and health systems science courses). Given that health and social care integration is highly context dependent, each medical school will likely need to tailor curricular changes based on their own institutional needs, mission, patient populations, and ties to the community. To increase interinstitutional alignment, medical schools might consider using or adapting peer-reviewed materials and assessments curated and centralized by the National Collaborative for Education to Address the Social Determinants of Health.

Housing Insecurity Among Patients With Cancer.

Social determinants of health are the economic and environmental conditions under which people are born, live, work, and age that affect health. These structural factors underlie many of the long-standing inequities in cancer care and outcomes that vary by geography, socioeconomic status, and race and ethnicity in the United States. Housing insecurity, including lack of safe, affordable, and stable housing, is a key social determinant of health that can influence-and be influenced by-cancer care across the continuum, from prevention to screening, diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. During 2021, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine sponsored a series of webinars addressing social determinants of health, including food, housing, and transportation insecurity, and their associations with cancer care and patient outcomes. This dissemination commentary summarizes the formal presentations and panel discussions from the webinar devoted to housing insecurity. It provides an overview of housing insecurity and health care across the cancer control continuum, describes health system interventions to minimize the impact of housing insecurity on patients with cancer, and identifies challenges and opportunities for addressing housing insecurity and improving health equity. Systematically identifying and addressing housing insecurity to ensure equitable access to cancer care and reduce health disparities will require ongoing investment at the practice, systems, and broader policy levels.

Social Risk Factors and Desire for Assistance Among Patients Receiving Subsidized Health Care Insurance in a US-Based Integrated Delivery System.

PURPOSE: Because social conditions such as food insecurity and housing instability shape health outcomes, health systems are increasingly screening for and addressing patients' social risks. This study documented the prevalence of social risks and examined the desire for assistance in addressing those risks in a US-based integrated delivery system. METHODS: A survey was administered to Kaiser Permanente members on subsidized exchange health insurance plans (2018-2019). The survey included questions about 4 domains of social risks, desire for help, and attitudes. We conducted a descriptive analysis and estimated multivariate modified Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Of 438 participants, 212 (48%) reported at least 1 social risk factor. Housing instability was the most common (70%) factor reported. Members with social risks reported more discomfort being screened for social risks (14.2% vs 5.4%; P = .002) than those without risks, although 90% of participants believed that health systems should assist in addressing social risks. Among those with 1-2 social risks, however, only 27% desired assistance. Non-Hispanic Black participants who reported a social risk were more than twice as likely to desire assistance compared with non-Hispanic White participants (adjusted relative risk [RR] 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.8). CONCLUSIONS: Athough most survey participants believed health systems have a role in addressing social risks, a minority of those reporting a risk wanted assistance and reported more discomfort being screened for risk factors than those without risks. Health systems should work to increase the comfort of patients in reporting risks, explore how to successfully assist them when desired, and offer resources to address these risks outside the health care sector.VISUAL ABSTRACT.

Screening and Interventions for Social Risk Factors: Technical Brief to Support the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: Evidence-based guidance is limited on how clinicians should screen for social risk factors and which interventions related to these risk factors improve health outcomes. Objective: To describe research on screening and interventions for social risk factors to inform US Preventive Services Task Force considerations of the implications for its portfolio of recommendations. Data Sources: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts (through 2018); Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network evidence library (January 2019 through May 2021); surveillance through May 21, 2021; interviews with 17 key informants. Study Selection: Individual-level and health care system-level interventions with a link to the health care system that addressed at least 1 of 7 social risk domains: housing instability, food insecurity, transportation difficulties, utility needs, interpersonal safety, education, and financial strain. Data Extraction and Synthesis: One investigator abstracted data from studies and a second investigator evaluated data abstractions for completeness and accuracy; key informant interviews were recorded, transcribed, summarized, and integrated with evidence from the literature; narrative synthesis with supporting tables and figures. Main Outcomes and Measures: Validity of multidomain social risk screening tools; all outcomes reported for social risk-related interventions; challenges or unintended consequences of screening and interventions. Results: Many multidomain social risk screening tools have been developed, but they vary widely in their assessment of social risk and few have been validated. This technical brief identified 106 social risk intervention studies (N = 5 978 596). Of the interventions studied, 73 (69%; n = 127 598) addressed multiple social risk domains. The most frequently addressed domains were food insecurity (67/106 studies [63%], n = 141 797), financial strain (52/106 studies [49%], n = 111 962), and housing instability (63/106 studies [59%], n = 5 881 222). Food insecurity, housing instability, and transportation difficulties were identified by key informants as the most important social risk factors to identify in health care. Thirty-eight studies (36%, n = 5 850 669) used an observational design with no comparator, and 19 studies (18%, n = 15 205) were randomized clinical trials. Health care utilization measures were the most commonly reported outcomes in the 68 studies with a comparator (38 studies [56%], n = 111 102). The literature and key informants described many perceived or potential challenges to implementation of social risk screening and interventions in health care. Conclusions and Relevance: Many interventions to address food insecurity, financial strain, and housing instability have been studied, but more randomized clinical trials that report health outcomes from social risk screening and intervention are needed to guide widespread implementation in health care.

Screening for Interpersonal Violence: Missed Opportunities and Potential Harms.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for interpersonal violence is used in healthcare settings to identify patients experiencing violence. However, using unvalidated screening tools may misclassify patients' experience with violence. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation adapted a previously validated intimate partner violence screening tool for use in assessing interpersonal violence and retained the tool's original scoring rubric, despite the new tool's broader scope. This study evaluates the scoring system for detecting safety concerns. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of adult patients and caregivers of pediatric patients at 7 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments (2018-2019). Surveys included the adapted 4-item Hurt Insult Threat Scream tool. Questions are scored by frequency on a Likert scale (1=never; 5=frequently). Scores of 11-20 are considered positive for safety concerns. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for descriptive analyses. Data analyses occurred in 2019-2020. RESULTS: Of 1,014 participants, 66 (6.5%) reported any frequency of physical violence. Of these, 54 (81.8%) did not reach the threshold score of 11. Of the 1,014 participants, 93 (9.2%) reported any frequency of physical violence or being threatened with harm; 76 of 93 participants (81.7%) scored <11. CONCLUSIONS: Using the original scoring criteria for the adapted Hurt Insult Threat Scream, >80% of participants reporting physical violence did not screen positive for potential safety concerns. The scoring criteria did not reliably identify participants experiencing or at high risk for violence. To improve patient safety, the adapted Hurt Insult Threat Scream scoring rubric should be updated on the basis of stakeholder input and additional validation studies.

Screening Discordance and Characteristics of Patients With Housing-Related Social Risks.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare systems are increasingly interested in identifying patients' housing-related risks, but minimal information exists to inform screening question selection. The primary study aim is to evaluate discordance among 5 housing-related screening questions used in health care. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional multisite survey of social risks used in a convenience sample of adults seeking care for themselves or their child at 7 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments across 9 states (2018-2019). Housing-related risks were measured using 2 questions from the Accountable Health Communities screening tool (current/anticipated housing instability, current housing quality problems) and 3 from the Children's HealthWatch recommended housing instability screening measures (prior 12-month: rent/mortgage strain, number of moves, current/recent homelessness). The 2-sided Fisher's exact tests analyzed housing-related risks and participant characteristics; logistic regression explored associations with reported health (2019-2020). RESULTS: Of 835 participants, 52% screened positive for ≥1 housing-related risk (n=430). Comparing the tools, 32.8% (n=274) screened discordant: 11.9% (n=99) screened positive by Children's HealthWatch questions but negative by Accountable Health Communities, and 21.0% (n=175) screened positive by the Accountable Health Communities tool but negative by Children's HealthWatch (p<0.001). Worse health was associated with screening positive for current/anticipated housing instability (AOR=0.56, 95% CI=0.32, 0.96) or current/recent homelessness (AOR=0.57, 95% CI=0.34, 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: The 5 housing questions captured different housing-related risks, contributed to different health consequences, and were relevant to different subpopulations. Before implementing housing-related screening initiatives, health systems should understand how specific measures surface distinct housing-related barriers. Measure selection should depend on program goals and intervention resources.

The Role of Value-Based Payment in Promoting Innovation to Address Social Risks: A Cross-Sectional Study of Social Risk Screening by US Physicians.

Policy Points One of the most important possibilities of value-based payment is its potential to spur innovation in upstream prevention, such as attention to social needs that lead to poor health. Screening patients for social risks such as housing instability and food insecurity represents an early step physician practices can take to address social needs. At present, adoption of social risk screening by physician practices is linked with having high innovation capacity and focusing on low-income populations, but not exposure to value-based payment. Expanding social risk screening by physician practices may require standardization and technical assistance for practices that have less innovative capacity. CONTEXT: One of the most important possibilities of value-based payment is its potential to spur innovation in upstream prevention, such as attention to social needs that lead to poor health. However, there is uncertainty about the conditions under which value-based payment will encourage health care providers to innovate to address upstream social risks. METHODS: We used the 2017-2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (NSHOS), a nationally representative survey of physician practices (n = 2,178), to ascertain (1) the number of social risks for which practices systematically screen patients; (2) the extent of practices' participation in value-based payment models; and (3) measures of practices' capacity for innovation. We used multivariate regression models to examine predictors of social risk screening. FINDINGS: On average, physician practices systematically screened for 2.4 out of 7 (34%) social risks assessed by the survey. In the fully adjusted model, implementing social risk screening was not associated with the practices' overall exposure to value-based payment. Being in the top quartile on any of three innovation capacity scales, however, was associated with screening for 0.95 to 1.00 additional social risk (p < 0.001 for all three results) relative to the bottom quartile. In subanalysis examining specific payment models, participating in a Medicaid accountable care organization was associated with screening for 0.37 more social risks (p = 0.015). Expecting more exposure to accountable care in the future was associated with greater social risk screening, but the effect size was small compared with practices' capacity for innovation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that implementation of social risk screening-an initial step in enhancing awareness of social needs in health care-is not associated with overall exposure to value-based payment for physician practices. Expanding social risk screening by physician practices may require standardized approaches and implementation assistance to reduce the level of innovative capacity required.

Effects of In-Person Navigation to Address Family Social Needs on Child Health Care Utilization: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: While many organizations endorse screening for social risk factors in clinical settings, few studies have examined the health and utilization effects of interventions to address social needs. Objective: To compare the acute care utilization effects of a written resources handout vs an in-person navigation service intervention to address social needs. Design, Settings, and Participants: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, 1809 adult caregivers of pediatric patients seen in primary and urgent care clinics of 2 safety-net hospitals in northern California were recruited between October 13, 2013, and August 27, 2015. Each participating family was randomly assigned to an in-person navigator intervention vs active control to address the family's social needs. Analyses were conducted between February 28, 2018, and September 25, 2019. Interventions: Caregivers either received written information about relevant local resources related to social needs (active control) or met with a patient navigator focused on helping them resolve social needs (navigator intervention). After an initial in-person visit, navigation services included telephone, email, and/or in-person follow-up for up to 3 months. Main Outcome and Measures: Child emergency department visit or hospitalization within 12 months of study enrollment. Results: Among the 1300 caregivers enrolled in the study without missing follow-up data, most spoke English (878 [67.5%]) and were women (1127 [86.7%]), with a mean (SD) age of 33.0 (9.33) years. Most children were aged 0 to 5 years (779 of 1300 [59.9%]), 723 children (55.6%) had Hispanic ethnicity, and 462 children (35.5%) were in excellent health; 840 families (64.6%) were recruited from urgent care. In total, 637 families (49.0%) were randomized to the in-person navigator group and 663 (51.0%) to the active control group. There was no difference in risk of an emergency department visit between the 2 groups. Children enrolled in the in-person navigator group had a decreased risk of hospitalization within 12 months (hazard ratio, 0.59; 05% CI, 0.38-0.94; P = .03), making them 69% less likely to be hospitalized. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial evaluating heath care utilization effects of programs designed to address social needs among families, children enrolled in the navigation group were significantly less likely to be hospitalized after the intervention but equally likely to have an emergency department visit. These findings strengthen our understanding of the effects of addressing social needs in clinical settings as part of a comprehensive strategy to improve health and reduce health care utilization. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01939704.

Psychometric and Pragmatic Properties of Social Risk Screening Tools: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Health systems increasingly are exploring implementation of standardized social risk assessments. Implementation requires screening tools both with evidence of validity and reliability (psychometric properties) and that are low cost, easy to administer, readable, and brief (pragmatic properties). These properties for social risk assessment tools are not well understood and could help guide selection of assessment tools and future research. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The systematic review was conducted during 2018 and included literature from PubMed and CINAHL published between 2000 and May 18, 2018. Included studies were based in the U.S., included tools that addressed at least 2 social risk factors (economic stability, education, social and community context, healthcare access, neighborhood and physical environment, or food), and were administered in a clinical setting. Manual literature searching was used to identify empirical uses of included screening tools. Data on psychometric and pragmatic properties of each tool were abstracted. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Review of 6,838 unique citations yielded 21 unique screening tools and 60 articles demonstrating empirical uses of the included screening tools. Data on psychometric properties were sparse, and few tools reported use of gold standard measurement development methods. Review of pragmatic properties indicated that tools were generally low cost, written for low-literacy populations, and easy to administer. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple low-cost, low literacy tools are available for social risk screening in clinical settings, but psychometric data are very limited. More research is needed on clinic-based screening tool reliability and validity as these factors should influence both adoption and utility. 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.

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.

Perspectives from the Society for Pediatric Research: interventions targeting social needs in pediatric clinical care.

The social determinants of health (SDoH) are defined by the World Health Organization as the "conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age." Within pediatrics, studies have highlighted links between these underlying social, economic, and environmental conditions, and a range of health outcomes related to both acute and chronic disease. Additionally, within the adult literature, multiple studies have shown significant links between social problems experienced during childhood and "adult diseases" such as diabetes mellitus and hypertension. A variety of potential mechanisms for such links have been explored including differential access to care, exposure to carcinogens and pathogens, health-affecting behaviors, and physiologic responses to allostatic load (i.e., toxic stress). This robust literature supports the importance of the SDoH and the development and evaluation of social needs interventions. These interventions are also driven by evolving economic realities, most importantly, the shift from fee-for-service to value-based payment models. This article reviews existing evidence regarding pediatric-focused clinical interventions that address the SDoH, those that target basic needs such as food insecurity, housing insecurity, and diminished access to care. The paper summarizes common challenges encountered in the evaluation of such interventions. Finally, the paper concludes by introducing key opportunities for future inquiry.

National Academy of Medicine Social and Behavioral Measures: Associations With Self-Reported Health.

INTRODUCTION: Social and behavioral factors play important roles in physical and mental health; however, they are not routinely assessed in the healthcare system. A brief panel of measures of social and behavioral determinants of health (SBDs) were recommended in a National Academy of Medicine report for use in electronic health records. Initial testing of the panel established feasibility of use and robustness of the measures. This study evaluates their convergent and divergent validity in relation to self-reported physical and mental health and social desirability bias. METHODS: Adults, aged ≥18 years, were recruited through Qualtrics online panel survey platform in 2015 (data analyzed in 2015-2016). Participants completed the (1) panel of SBD measures; (2) 12-Item Short Form Health Survey to assess associations with global physical and mental health; and (3) Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale short form to assess whether social desirability influenced associations between SBD measures and self-reported health. RESULTS: The sample included 513 participants (mean age, 47.9 [SD=14.2] years; 65.5% female). Several SBD domain measures were associated with physical and mental health. Adjusting for age, poorer physical and mental health were observed among participants reporting higher levels of financial resource strain, stress, depression, physical inactivity, current tobacco use, and a positive score for intimate partner violence. These associations remained significant after adjustment for social desirability bias. CONCLUSIONS: SBD domains were associated with global measures of physical and mental health and were not impacted by social desirability bias. The panel of SBD measures should now be tested in clinical settings.

Effects of Social Needs Screening and In-Person Service Navigation on Child Health: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Social determinants of health shape both children's immediate health and their lifetime risk for disease. Increasingly, pediatric health care organizations are intervening to address family social adversity. However, little evidence is available on the effectiveness of related interventions. Objective: To evaluate the effects of social needs screening and in-person resource navigation services on social needs and child health. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients were randomized to intervention or active control conditions by the day of the week. Primary outcomes observed at 4 months after enrollment included caregivers' reports of social needs and child health status. Recruitment occurred between October 13, 2013, and August 27, 2015, in pediatric primary and urgent care clinics in 2 safety-net hospitals. Participants were English-speaking or Spanish-speaking caregivers accompanying minor children to nonacute medical visits. Interventions: After standardized screening, caregivers either received written information on relevant community services (active control) or received in-person help to access services with follow-up telephone calls for further assistance if needed (navigation intervention). Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in reported social needs and in caregiver assessment of child's overall health reported 4 months later. Results: Among 1809 patients enrolled in the study, evenly split between the 2 sites, 31.6% (n = 572) were enrolled in a primary care clinic and 68.4% (n = 1237) were enrolled in an urgent care setting. The children were primarily Hispanic white individuals (50.9% [n = 921]) and non-Hispanic black individuals (26.2% [n = 473]) and had a mean (SD) age of 5.1 (4.8) years; 50.5% (n = 913) were female. The reported number of social needs at baseline ranged from 0 to 11 of 14 total possible items, with a mean (SD) of 2.7 (2.2). At 4 months after enrollment, the number of social needs reported by the intervention arm decreased more than that reported by the control arm, with a mean (SE) change of -0.39 (0.13) vs 0.22 (0.13) (P < .001). In addition, caregivers in the intervention arm reported significantly greater improvement in their child's health, with a mean (SE) change of -0.36 (0.05) vs -0.12 (0.05) (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: To our knowledge, this investigation is the first randomized clinical trial to evaluate health outcomes of a pediatric social needs navigation program. Compared with an active control at 4 months after enrollment, the intervention significantly decreased families' reports of social needs and significantly improved children's overall health status as reported by caregivers. These findings support the feasibility and potential effect of addressing social needs in pediatric health care settings. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01939704.