In-person versus electronic screening for social risks among carers of pediatric inpatients: A mixed methods randomized trial.

We aimed to compare disclosure of social risks according to self-report on an iPad versus face-to-face questions from a health professional and to explore carers' experiences of screening. This two-arm, parallel group, randomized trial was conducted from January 19, 2021, to December 17, 2021, in a public hospital pediatric ward serving a disadvantaged area of an Australian capital city. Carers of children aged ≤ 5 years admitted to the Children's Ward were eligible. The primary outcome was disclosure of social risks. The screener included nine items on food security, household utilities, transport, employment, personal and neighborhood safety, social support, housing and homelessness. Disclosure of social risks was similar between the self-completion (n = 193) and assisted-completion (n = 193) groups for all 9 items, ranging 4.1% higher for worrying about money for food (95% CI - 11.4, 3.1%) among the assisted-completion group, to 5.7% (-1.6, 13.0%) higher for unemployment among the self-completion group. In qualitative interviews, participants were positive about screening for social risks in the hospital ward setting and the majority indicated a preference for self-completion.  Conclusion: Differences in the disclosure of social risks according to self- versus assisted-completion were small, suggesting that either method could be used. Most carers expressed a preference for self- completion, which is therefore recommended as the ideal mode for such data collection for Australian pediatric inpatient settings.  Trial registration: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ( www.anzctry.org.au ; #ACTRN12620001326987; date of registration 8 December 2020). What is Known: • Most evidence on screening of social risks in pediatric inpatient settings is from the USA. • Little is known about disclosure of social risks in countries with universal health care and social welfare. What is New: • Disclosure of social risks was similar for electronic compared with face-to-face screening. • Carers preferred electronic completion over face-to-face completion.

Development of Social Determinants of Health Screening Tool (SDoHST): qualitative validation with stakeholders and patients in South Australia.

BACKGROUND: It is well-established that social determinants of health contribute to health and well-being. Among the social determinants of health, health-related social needs (HRSNs) are unmet needs that can be identified by the health care system and addressed through referral to community services. Despite the importance of identifying patients with HRSNs, none of the few screening tools for HRSNs available internationally have received a comprehensive psychometric validation. This study aims to conduct a qualitative validation of the Social Determinants of Health Screening Tool (SDoHST). METHODS: This study took place at Lyell McEwin Hospital, a major tertiary hospital located in Adelaide, South Australia. Patient (n = 5) and stakeholder (n = 9) focus groups were conducted face to face, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Inductive content analysis of focus group transcripts was performed to inform tool modifications (e.g. item rewording). RESULTS: The patient focus group recommended the addition of an explanatory paragraph to improve face validity, and highlighted the importance of reliable transport and internet access. The stakeholder focus group recommended using language that carries less stigma to this particular community and incorporating questions surrounding cultural, linguistic, and spiritual needs. The final version of the SDoHST included 12 items (four original items were removed and seven new items were added during the validation process). CONCLUSION: The SDoHST is the first validated tool to measure social determinants of health (and specifically HRSNs) in Australia, receiving a comprehensive qualitative validation. The instrument is readily available and future studies will further investigate its psychometric properties with quantitative methods.

A brief guide to screening tools for social determinants of health and their validationThe importance of social context in contributing to overall health is well-established. Social determinants of health (SDoH) are social and environmental factors such as employment, housing security, financial stability, social isolation, and personal safety, which contribute up to 60% of overall health.In recent years, there has been a paradigm shift in how healthcare systems view health and wellbeing. There is a growing call to intervene in adverse SDoH from within the healthcare system. One such intervention involves screening patients for unmet needs, such as housing or food insecurity, and providing appropriate connections to organizations in the community to assist with their needs.The screening tools implemented in this context are multiple and diverse. Some target only one or two factors while others assess multiple SDoH. However, little is reported about the development of these tools. If a screening tool is not thoroughly developed and validated, it is impossible to know whether the data collected with the tool are appropriate or relevant. This study details the development and validation of a screening tool for unmet social needs by community members and healthcare providers at a major metropolitan hospital in South Australia.

Capturing the social determinants of health at the individual level: a pilot study.

Objective and importance of study: Considerable evidence suggests that adverse social determinants of health (SDH), such as poor education, unemployment, food and housing insecurity, interpersonal violence, inadequate social support and poverty, are key determinants of health and wellbeing. This prospective cohort study piloted a screening tool to collect individual SDH data in a South Australian hospital inpatient population. We explored participants' attitudes to SDH screening in brief follow-up interviews. METHODS: This mixed-methods study used an SDH screening tool to collect individual-level SDH data from inpatients living in a highly disadvantaged socio-economic area. Participants had a primary diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart failure (HF) or diabetes mellitus. Follow-up interviews were completed post discharge via telephone. Descriptive statistics were employed to examine the prevalence and type of adverse SDH reported by the sample. Thematic analysis was applied to explore participants' attitudes to the screening. RESULTS: The sample population (N = 37) reported a substantial burden of a range of adverse SDH (mean 4.7 adverse SDH experienced per participant, standard deviation 2.8). Participants involved in follow-up interviews (n = 8) believed screening might enhance communication between healthcare providers and patients and assist in identifying underlying social problems. CONCLUSION: A screening tool for SDH was successfully used to collect individual-level data in a hospital setting. An array of adverse SDH was common in the sample population. Participants believed screening for SDH may potentially benefit doctors and patients. A larger study is required to more robustly characterise the adverse SDH affecting individuals in this population and to explore how the healthcare system might effectively intervene.