Routinely asking patients about income in primary care: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Income is a key social determinant of health, yet it is rare for data on income to be routinely collected and integrated with electronic health records. AIM: To examine response bias and evaluate patient perspectives of being asked about income in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: Mixed-methods study in a large, multi-site primary care organisation in Toronto, Canada, where patients are asked about income in a routinely administered sociodemographic survey. METHOD: Data were examined from the electronic health records of patients who answered at least one question on the survey between December 2013 and March 2016 (n = 14 247). The study compared those who responded to the income question with non-responders. Structured interviews with 27 patients were also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 10 441 (73%) patients responded to both parts of the income question: 'What was your total family income before taxes last year?' and 'How many people does your income support?'. Female patients, ethnic minorities, caregivers of young children, and older people were less likely to respond. From interviews, many patients were comfortable answering the income question, particularly if they understood the connection between income and health, and believed the data would be used to improve care. Several patients found it difficult to estimate their income or felt the options did not reflect fluctuating financial circumstances. CONCLUSION: Many patients will provide data on income in the context of a survey in primary care, but accurately estimating income can be challenging. Future research should compare self-reported income to perceived financial strain. Data on income linked to health records can help identify health inequities and help target anti-poverty interventions.

Exploring different methods to evaluate the impact of basic income interventions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Persistent income inequality, the increase in precarious employment, the inadequacy of many welfare systems, and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have increased interest in Basic Income (BI) interventions. Ensuring that social interventions, such as BI, are evaluated appropriately is key to ensuring their overall effectiveness. This systematic review therefore aims to report on available methods and domains of assessment, which have been used to evaluate BI interventions. These findings will assist in informing future program and research development and implementation. METHODS: Studies were identified through systematic searches of the indexed and grey literature (Databases included: Scopus, Embase, Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, ProQuest databases, EBSCOhost Research Databases, and PsycINFO), hand-searching reference lists of included studies, and recommendations from experts. Citations were independently reviewed by two study team members. We included studies that reported on methods used to evaluate the impact of BI, incorporated primary data from an observational or experimental study, or were a protocol for a future BI study. We extracted information on the BI intervention, context and evaluation method. RESULTS: 86 eligible articles reported on 10 distinct BI interventions from the last six decades. Workforce participation was the most common outcome of interest among BI evaluations in the 1960-1980 era. During the 2000s, studies of BI expanded to include outcomes related to health, educational attainment, housing and other key facets of life impacted by individuals' income. Many BI interventions were tested in randomized controlled trials with data collected through surveys at multiple time points. CONCLUSIONS: Over the last two decades, the assessment of the impact of BI interventions has evolved to include a wide array of outcomes. This shift in evaluation outcomes reflects the current hypothesis that investing in BI can result in lower spending on health and social care. Methods of evaluation ranged but emphasized the use of randomization, surveys, and existing data sources (i.e., administrative data). Our findings can inform future BI intervention studies and interventions by providing an overview of how previous BI interventions have been evaluated and commenting on the effectiveness of these methods. REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD 42016051218).

Awareness and Use of Community Services among Primary Care Physicians.

Primary care physicians play an important role in care coordination, including initiating referrals to community resources. Yet, it is unclear how awareness and use of community resources vary between physicians practising with and without an extended healthcare team. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of primary care physicians practising in Toronto, Canada, to compare awareness and use of community services between physicians practising in team- and non-team-based practice models. Team-based models included Community Health Centres and Family Health Teams - settings in which the government provides funding for the practice to hire non-physician health professionals, such as social workers, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, registered nurses and others. The survey was mailed to physicians, and reminders were done by phone, fax and e-mail. We used logistic regression to compare awareness between physicians in team-based (N = 89) and non-team-based (N = 138) models after controlling for confounders. We found that fewer than half of the physicians were aware of five of eight centralized intake services (e.g., ConnexOntario, Telehomecare). For most services, team-based physicians had at least twice the odds of being aware of the service compared to non-team-based physicians. Our findings suggest that patients in team-based practices may be doubly advantaged, with access to non-physician health professionals within the practice as well as to physicians who are more aware of community resources.

Routine identification of patients with disabilities in primary care: A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: People with disabilities experience barriers to receiving healthcare and often have worse health outcomes, but data on disability is rarely routinely collected in a standardized way. OBJECTIVE: This study examined how patients responded to being asked about disabilities as part of a routine, self-administered sociodemographic survey. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study in a multi-site primary care organization. We compared the characteristics of people who responded to a question about disabilities to those who did not respond using logistic regression. We also compared survey responses to data available in medical charts. In-depth interviews were conducted with a sample of patients following survey completion. RESULTS: Over 28 months, 15,221 patients were offered the survey and 14,247 (93.6%) responded to at least one question. Of these, 11,275 (79.1%) patients answered the question about disabilities. Older patients, patients who rented their home, and non-White patients were less likely to respond to the question. When comparing survey responses to data from medical charts we identified discrepancies. Patients interviewed reported they had difficulty judging what constituted a disability. Stigma related to mental illness and substance use led them to avoid disclosing those conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Directly asking patients whether they have a disability may be challenging given confusion about what constitutes a disability and stigma associated with certain disabilities. Future research should examine whether asking about barriers faced in accessing health services could adequately identify patients with disabilities and also be used to identify tangible actions an organization could take to lower barriers to care.

Patient perspectives on routinely being asked about their race and ethnicity: Qualitative study in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To understand patients' perspectives on responding to a question about their race and ethnicity in a primary care setting. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured individual interviews conducted between May and July 2016. SETTING: An academic family health team in Toronto, Ont, where collection of sociodemographic data has been routine since 2013. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven patients from 5 of the 6 clinic sites of the family health team, ranging in age, sex, educational background, and immigration status. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with patients who completed a sociodemographic questionnaire after registration for their medical appointment. Patients were asked whether responding to the question was difficult or uncomfortable, how they interpreted the term race and ethnicity, and what response options they considered. Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, and coded iteratively. MAIN FINDINGS: Patients did not report discomfort with responding to a question about race and ethnicity in their family doctor's office. Although many patients considered the question straightforward, some patients reported different interpretations of the question. For example, some thought the question about race and ethnicity related to parental origin or ancestry, whereas others considered the question to be about personal place of birth or upbringing. Many patients appreciated being able to select from a variety of specific response options, but this also posed a difficulty for patients who could not easily find an option that reflected their identity. Patients with mixed heritage experienced the most challenges selecting a response. CONCLUSION: Patients attending a primary care clinic were not uncomfortable responding to a question about race and ethnicity. However, patients had different interpretations of what was being asked. Future research should explore perspectives of patients in other primary care settings and test different methods for collecting data about their race and ethnicity.

Routine collection of sexual orientation and gender identity data: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Sexual orientation and gender identity are key social determinants of health, but data on these characteristics are rarely routinely collected. We examined patients' reactions to being asked routinely about their sexual orientation and gender identity, and compared answers to the gender identity question against other data in the medical chart on gender identity. METHODS: We analyzed data on any patient who answered at least 1 question on a routinely administered sociodemographic survey between Dec. 1, 2013, and Mar. 31, 2016. We also conducted semistructured interviews with 27 patients after survey completion. RESULTS: The survey was offered to 15 221 patients and 14 247 (93.6%) responded to at least 1 of the sociodemographic survey questions. Most respondents answered the sexual orientation (90.6%) and gender identity (96.1%) questions. Many patients who had been classified as transgender or gender diverse in their medical chart did not self-identify as transgender, but rather selected female (22.9%) or male (15.4%). In the semistructured interviews, many patients expressed appreciation at the variety of options available, although some did not see their identities reflected in the options and some felt uncomfortable answering the questions. INTERPRETATION: We found a high response rate to questions about sexual orientation and gender identity. Fitting with other research, we suggest using a 2-part question to explore gender identity. Future research should evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of administering these questions in a variety of care settings. These data can help organizations identify health inequities related to sexual orientation and gender identity.