Investigating the Poverty-Reducing Effects of SNAP on Non-nutritional Family Outcomes: A Scoping Review.

INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE: Poverty-reduction efforts that seek to support households with children and enable healthy family functioning are vital to produce positive economic, health, developmental, and upward mobility outcomes. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is an effective poverty-reduction policy for individuals and families. This study investigated the non-nutritional effects that families experience when receiving SNAP benefits. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review using the PRISMA Guidelines and strategic search terms across seven databases from 01 January 2008 to 01 February 2023 (n=2456). Data extraction involved two researchers performing title-abstract reviews. Full-text articles were assessed for eligibility (n=103). Forty articles were included for data retrieval. RESULTS: SNAP positively impacts family health across the five categories of the Family Stress Model (Healthcare utilization for children and parents, Familial allocation of resources, Impact on child development and behavior, Mental health, and Abuse or neglect). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: SNAP is a highly effective program with growing evidence that it positively impacts family health and alleviates poverty. Four priority policy actions are discussed to overcome the unintentional barriers for SNAP: distributing benefits more than once a month; increasing SNAP benefits for recipients; softening the abrupt end of benefits when wages increase; and coordinating SNAP eligibility and enrollment with other programs.

Clinicians' perspectives on the integration of electronic patient-reported outcomes into dermatology clinics: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Skin conditions can have profound negative symptomatic and psychological effects. Failure to address these effects can lead to poor treatment adherence and/or patient dissatisfaction. Despite patient-reported outcome (PRO) use being highly recommended, real-world adoption has been slow. OBJECTIVES: To assess clinicians' perceived facilitators and barriers to using PROs in daily practice. METHODS: We conducted in-person semi-structured interviews with 19 clinicians and thematic analysis of transcripts. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged: (1) clinicians' attitudes about the value of Skindex-16 in daily practice, (2) patient attitudes influencing clinicians' use of Skindex-16, and (3) clinicians' perceptions of their ability to use PROs successfully for clinical care. Clinicians recognized benefits to using Skindex-16, such as revealing patients' hidden concerns and highlighting discrepancies with the clinician's severity assessments. Conversely, clinicians also identified limitations, such as time constraints and lack of relevance for some skin conditions. Patient complaints about PRO relevance have influenced clinicians' use of Skindex-16 negatively. Finally, some clinicians recognized the need for more training in score interpretation and implementation strategies for optimal clinical flow. CONCLUSIONS: While most clinicians believed PROs like Skindex-16 can be useful for patient care, barriers need to be addressed to make PROs more practical for routine clinical care.