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.

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.

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.

Implementation and Impacts of California Senate Bill 1152 on Homeless Discharge Protocols.

Introduction: In recent decades, there has been a growing focus on addressing social needs in healthcare settings. California has been at the forefront of making state-level investments to improve care for patients with complex social and medical needs, including patients experiencing homelessness (PEH). Examples include Medicaid 1115 waivers such as the Whole Person Care pilot program and California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM). To date, California is also the only state to have passed a legislative mandate to address concerns related to the hospital discharge of PEH who lack sufficient resources to support self-care. To this end, California enacted Senate Bill 1152 (SB 1152), a unique legislative mandate that requires hospitals to standardize comprehensive discharge processes for PEH by providing (and documenting the provision of) social and preventive services. Understanding the implementation and impact of this law will help inform California and other states considering legislative investments in healthcare activities to improve care for PEH. Methods: To understand health system stakeholders' perceived impact of SB 1152 on hospital discharge processes and key barriers and facilitators to SB 1152's implementation, we conducted 32 semi-structured interviews with key informants across 16 general acute care hospitals in Humboldt and Los Angeles counties. Study data were coded and analyzed using thematic analysis informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results: Participants perceived several positive impacts of SB 1152, including streamlined services, increased accountability, and more staff awareness about homelessness. In parallel, participants also underscored concerns about the law's limited scope and highlighted multiple implementation challenges, including lack of clarity about accountability measures, scarcity of implementation supports, and gaps in community resources. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that SB 1152 was an important step toward the goal of more universal safe discharge of PEH. However, there are also several addressable concerns. Recommendations to improve future legislation include adding targeted funding for social care staff and improving implementation training. Participants' broader concerns about the parallel need to increase community resources are more challenging to address in the immediate term, but such changes will also be necessary to improve the overall health outcomes of PEH.

The prevalence of social care in US health care settings depends on how and whom you ask.

BACKGROUND: Despite unprecedented enthusiasm for integrating social risk screening and related interventions into US health care settings, we know relatively little about the extent to which these activities occur. We reviewed results from multiple national surveys that reported on the prevalence of social care activities. METHODS: We used snowball sampling to solicit input from 29 expert informants who were asked to share any knowledge about survey instruments that included questions on the prevalence of social care-related activities conducted in health care settings. We subsequently ran web searches on recommended surveys to identify those fielded with a national sample and conducted between Jan 1, 2007 and May 31, 2019. Finally, we analyzed and compared results across surveys. RESULTS: We reviewed 23 total survey events (19 individual surveys and 4 that had been re-administered) that included questions on the extent of social care activities across health care disciplines and settings. Samples included a wide range of health care stakeholders (including payers, health care executives, providers, and patients.) Sample sizes ranged across the types of respondents: 95-120 respondents in surveys of payers; 44-757 in surveys of health care delivery leaders; 484-2333 in surveys of clinicians; and 500-7002 in surveys of patients. In eight cases, survey reports did not include response rates; another four reports described response rates under 25%. Fifteen of the 23 surveys incorporated questions on the prevalence of social risk screening; 17 included questions on social care intervention activities. Responses about the prevalence of both screening and interventions varied widely: between 15 and 100% of respondents reported their organization conducts screening for at least one social risk; 18-100% of respondents reported providing social care interventions. Between 3 and 22% of surveyed patients reported being screened or assisted with a social risk. In the four surveys that were administered in different years, we found no significant differences in results between survey administrations. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that caution is warranted in interpreting survey findings from any single survey since existing surveys report a wide range of prevalence estimates for social risk screening and 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.

Priority-setting in public health research funding organisations: an exploratory qualitative study among five high-profile funders.

BACKGROUND: Priority-driven funding streams for population and public health are an important part of the health research landscape and contribute to orienting future scholarship in the field. While research priorities are often made public through targeted calls for research, less is known about how research funding organisations arrive at said priorities. Our objective was to explore how public health research funding organisations develop priorities for strategic extramural research funding programmes. METHODS: Content analysis of published academic and grey literature and key informant interviews for five public and private funders of public health research in the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States and France were performed. RESULTS: We found important distinctions in how funding organisations processed potential research priorities through four non-sequential phases, namely idea generation, idea analysis, idea socialisation and idea selection. Funders generally involved the public health research community and public health decision-makers in idea generation and socialisation, but other groups of stakeholders (e.g. the public, advocacy organisations) were not as frequently included. CONCLUSIONS: Priority-setting for strategic funding programmes in public health research involves consultation mainly with researchers in the early phase of the process. There is an opportunity for greater breadth of participation and more transparency in priority-setting mechanisms for strategic funding programmes in population and public health research.

Factors affecting the implementation of childhood vaccination communication strategies in Nigeria: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The role of health communication in vaccination programmes cannot be overemphasized: it has contributed significantly to creating and sustaining demand for vaccination services and improving vaccination coverage. In Nigeria, numerous communication approaches have been deployed but these interventions are not without challenges. We therefore aimed to explore factors affecting the delivery of vaccination communication in Nigeria. METHODS: We used a qualitative approach and conducted the study in two states: Bauchi and Cross River States in northern and southern Nigeria respectively. We identified factors affecting the implementation of communication interventions through interviews with relevant stakeholders involved in vaccination communication in the health services. We also reviewed relevant documents. Data generated were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We used the SURE framework to organise the identified factors (barriers and facilitators) affecting vaccination communication delivery. We then grouped these into health systems and community level factors. Some of the commonly reported health system barriers amongst stakeholders interviewed included: funding constraints, human resource factors (health worker shortages, training deficiencies, poor attitude of health workers and vaccination teams), inadequate infrastructure and equipment and weak political will. Community level factors included the attitudes of community stakeholders and of parents and caregivers. We also identified factors that appeared to facilitate communication activities. These included political support, engagement of traditional and religious institutions and the use of organised communication committees. CONCLUSIONS: Communication activities are a crucial element of immunization programmes. It is therefore important for policy makers and programme managers to understand the barriers and facilitators affecting the delivery of vaccination communication so as to be able to implement communication interventions more effectively.

Tool for assessing health and equity impacts of interventions modifying air quality in urban environments.

BACKGROUND: Urban outdoor air pollution (AP) is a major public health concern but the mechanisms by which interventions impact health and social inequities are rarely assessed. Health and equity impacts of policies and interventions are questioned, but managers and policy agents in various institutional contexts have very few practical tools to help them better orient interventions in sectors other than the health sector. Our objective was to create such a tool to facilitate the assessment of health impacts of urban outdoor AP interventions by non-public health experts. METHODS: An iterative process of reviewing the academic literature, brainstorming, and consultation with experts was used to identify the chain of effects of urban outdoor AP and the major modifying factors. To test its applicability, the tool was applied to two interventions, the London Low Emission Zone and the Montréal BIXI public bicycle-sharing program. RESULTS: We identify the chain of effects, six categories of modifying factors: those controlling the source of emissions, the quantity of emissions, concentrations of emitted pollutants, their spatial distribution, personal exposure, and individual vulnerability. Modifiable and non-modifiable factors are also identified. Results are presented in the text but also graphically, as we wanted it to be a practical tool, from pollution sources to emission, exposure, and finally, health effects. CONCLUSION: The tool represents a practical first step to assessing AP-related interventions for health and equity impacts. Understanding how different factors affect health and equity through air pollution can provide insight to city policymakers pursuing Health in All Policies.

Addressing equity in interventions to reduce air pollution in urban areas: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: We did a systematic review to assess quantitative studies investigating the association between interventions aiming to reduce air pollution, health benefits and equity effects. METHODS: Three databases were searched for studies investigating the association between evaluated interventions aiming to reduce air pollution and heath-related benefits. We designed a two-stage selection process to judge how equity was assessed and we systematically determined if there was a heterogeneous effect of the intervention between subgroups or subareas. RESULTS: Of 145 identified articles, 54 were reviewed in-depth with eight satisfying the inclusion criteria. This systematic review showed that interventions aiming to reduce air pollution in urban areas have a positive impact on air quality and on mortality rates, but the documented effect on equity is less straightforward. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of equity in evidence-based public health is a great challenge nowadays. In this review we draw attention to the importance of considering equity in air pollution interventions. We also propose further methodological and theoretical challenges when assessing equity in interventions to reduce air pollution and we present opportunities to develop this research area.