Food security is a commonly screened for health-related social need at hospitals and community settings, and until recently, there were no tools to additionally screen for nutrition security. The purpose of this study was to assess the potential advantage of including a one-item brief nutrition security screener (BNSS) alongside the commonly used two-item Hunger Vital Sign (HVS) food security screener for identifying individuals with diet-related health risks. Cross-sectional survey data were collected from April to June 2021. Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess associations between screening status and dietary and health variables. Recruitment was done across five states (California, Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, and Washington) from community-based organizations. Participants (n = 435) were, on average, 44.7 years old (SD = 14.5), predominantly women (77%), and racially/ethnically diverse. In adjusted analyses, being in the food insecure and nutrition insecure group (but not the food insecure and nutrition secure or food secure and nutrition insecure groups) was associated with significantly increased odds for self-reported \"fair\" or \"poor\" general health [OR = 2.914 (95% CI = 1.521-5.581)], reporting at least one chronic condition [2.028 (1.024-4.018)], and \"low\" fruit and vegetable intake [2.421 (1.258-4.660)], compared with the food secure and nutrition secure group. These findings support using both the HVS and BNSS simultaneously in health-related social needs screening to identify participants at the highest risk for poor dietary and health outcomes and warrant further investigation into applying these screeners to clinical and community settings.
Food security and nutrition security are related to a household’s ability to get enough food and to get food that is good for their health, respectively. Patients at hospitals, or clients who go to food pantries for help, are often asked about their food security status. This is referred to as screening. On the basis of their answers, they may get help such as referral to a food pantry and/or consultation with a dietitian. While there is a standard tool to screen for food security status, until recently, there has not been one for nutrition security. We used both the commonly used Hunger Vital Sign (HVS) food security screener and the newly developed brief nutrition security screener to identify food and nutrition security screening status. Being in the food insecure and nutrition insecure groups (but not the food insecure and nutrition secure or food secure and nutrition insecure groups) was associated with significantly increased odds for poor dietary and health outcomes. These findings support using both the HVS and brief nutrition security screener simultaneously in health-related social needs screening to identify participants at the highest risk.

OBJECTIVE: As health-related social needs (HRSN) screening increases, attention to families\' resource preferences lags. This study of a pediatric primary care intervention (DULCE) with reliable HRSN screening and resource connection explored whether resources adequately addressed families\' needs and, when HRSN persisted, families\' reasons for declining resources.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort, mixed-methods study analyzed data from 989 families that received care at seven pediatric clinics implementing DULCE in three states. DULCE screens for seven HRSN around the 1-month and 4-month well-child visits; we calculated the percent of initial and ongoing positive screens. For positive rescreens, we calculated the percent that had all eligible or wanted resources and that were interested in further resources. We also analyzed case notes, which elicited families\' resource preferences, and explored demographic characteristics associated with ongoing HRSN.
RESULTS: Half of enrolled families (508 of 989) initially screened positive for HRSN; 124 families had positive rescreens; 26 expressed interest in further assistance. Most families with ongoing concrete supports needs accessed all eligible resources (60-100%); 20-58% had everything they wanted. Fewer families with ongoing maternal depression and intimate partner violence accessed all eligible resources (48% and 18%, respectively); most reported having all wanted resources (76% and 90%, respectively). Families declined resources due to lack of perceived need, the HRSN resolving, or families addressed HRSN themselves. White families were more likely to rescreen positive.
CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric medical homes must honor family-centered decision-making while empowering families to accept beneficial resources. Healthcare systems should advocate for resources that families need and want.

The Quintuple Aim seeks to improve healthcare by addressing social determinants of health (SDOHs), which are responsible for 70-80% of medical outcomes. SDOH-related concerns have traditionally been addressed through referrals to social workers and community-based organizations (CBOs), but these pathways have had limited success in connecting patients with resources. Given that health inequity is expected to cost the United States nearly USD 300 billion by 2050, new artificial intelligence (AI) technology may aid providers in addressing SDOH. In this commentary, we present our experience with using ChatGPT to obtain SDOH management recommendations for archetypal patients in Philadelphia, PA. ChatGPT identified relevant SDOH resources and provided contact information for local organizations. Future exploration could improve AI prompts and integrate AI into electronic medical records to provide healthcare providers with real-time SDOH recommendations during appointments.

UNASSIGNED: Despite the incentives and provisions created for hospitals by the US Affordable Care Act related to value-based payment and community health needs assessments, concerns remain regarding the adequacy and distribution of hospital efforts to address SDOH. This scoping review of the peer-reviewed literature identifies the key characteristics of hospital/health system initiatives to address SDOH in the US, to gain insight into the progress and gaps.
UNASSIGNED: PRISMA-ScR criteria were used to inform a scoping review of the literature. The article search was guided by an integrated framework of Healthy People SDOH domains and industry recommended SDOH types for hospitals. Three academic databases were searched for eligible articles from 1 January 2018 to 30 June 2023. Database searches yielded 3,027 articles, of which 70 peer-reviewed articles met the eligibility criteria for the review.
UNASSIGNED: Most articles (73%) were published during or after 2020 and 37% were based in Northeast US. More initiatives were undertaken by academic health centers (34%) compared to safety-net facilities (16%). Most (79%) were research initiatives, including clinical trials (40%). Only 34% of all initiatives used the EHR to collect SDOH data. Most initiatives (73%) addressed two or more types of SDOH, e.g., food and housing. A majority (74%) were downstream initiatives to address individual health-related social needs (HRSNs). Only 9% were upstream efforts to address community-level structural SDOH, e.g., housing investments. Most initiatives (74%) involved hot spotting to target HRSNs of high-risk patients, while 26% relied on screening and referral. Most initiatives (60%) relied on internal capacity vs. community partnerships (4%). Health disparities received limited attention (11%). Challenges included implementation issues and limited evidence on the systemic impact and cost savings from interventions.
UNASSIGNED: Hospital/health system initiatives have predominantly taken the form of downstream initiatives to address HRSNs through hot-spotting or screening-and-referral. The emphasis on clinical trials coupled with lower use of EHR to collect SDOH data, limits transferability to safety-net facilities. Policymakers must create incentives for hospitals to invest in integrating SDOH data into EHR systems and harnessing community partnerships to address SDOH. Future research is needed on the systemic impact of hospital initiatives to address SDOH.

OBJECTIVE: There are limited data about food insecurity within the cancer screening setting. To inform the potential need for food insecurity interventions, our study evaluated the association between food security and mammographic screening among eligible participants.
METHODS: Female respondents aged 40 to 74 years in the 2019 National Health Interview Survey without history of breast cancer were included. Food insecurity was assessed using the Six-Item Food Security Scale developed by the National Center for Health Statistics. The proportion of patients who reported mammographic screening within the last year was estimated, stratified by food security. Multiple variable logistic regression analyses evaluated the association between food security and mammography screening, adjusted for potential confounders. All analyses were performed accounting for complex survey design features.
RESULTS: In all, 8,956 weighted survey respondents met inclusion criteria; 90.1% were classified as having high or marginal food security, of whom 56.6% reported screening; 6.1% were classified with low food security, of whom 42.1% reported screening; and 3.8% were classified with very low food security, of whom 43.1% reported screening. In our unadjusted analyses, participants with low food security (P < .001) and very low food security (P < .001) were less likely to report screening within the last year. In our adjusted analyses, participants with food insecurity (P = .009) were less likely to report screening.
CONCLUSIONS: In a nationally representative cross-sectional survey, participants with food insecurity were less likely to report mammography screening. Radiology practices should consider screening patients for food insecurity and social determinants of health. Evidence-based food insecurity interventions may increase adherence to mammography screening.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health (SDOH) have been identified as factors that influence patient health outcomes. These are well described in adult and pediatric general populations, however, there is a paucity of data for surgical patients. This study compares the prevalence of health-related social needs (HRSN) among pediatric surgery and general pediatric patients.
METHODS: We retrospectively assessed electronic health record data to identify patients who completed a standardized HRSN screener within our health system and underwent surgery by a pediatric surgeon between January 2019 and December 2021. We compared this population to non-surgical pediatric patients during this time. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to estimate the likelihood of having 1 or more HRSN given a patient\'s surgery status. Logistic and linear regressions were conducted to estimate healthcare utilization in pediatric surgery patients given their HRSN status.
RESULTS: 33,989 general pediatric and pediatric surgery patients (age <21 years) were screened for HRSNs, and 2112 operations were performed during the study period. 343 (20%) of the surgical patients operated on by pediatric surgeons were screened for HRSNs. Surgical patients were more likely to be younger, Latinx, Spanish-speaking, and non-commercially insured (p < 0.0001). Surgical patients were 50% more likely to report one or more HRSN, when adjusting for demographic characteristics (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 1.16, 1.94).
CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric surgery patients are more likely to report HRSNs compared to the general pediatric population. Surgical patients may represent an at-risk group, and universal HRSN screening and support should be considered to improve outcomes.
METHODS: Level III.

OBJECTIVE: Explore factors influencing patient comfort with and perceived helpfulness of screening for health-related social needs.
METHODS: In a parallel secondary mixed-methods analysis of data from three primary care clinics, we used logistic regression to examine effects of practice- and patient-level factors on comfort with and perceived helpfulness of social needs screening. We applied narrative analysis to 20 patient interviews to further understand how patients\' lived experiences influenced their perceptions of screening.
RESULTS: Among 511 patients, receiving an explanation about screening was associated with increased odds of comfort (OR 2.1, 95% CI [1.1-4.30]) and perceived helpfulness (OR 4.7 [2.8-7.8]). Those experiencing more needs were less likely to report comfort (3 + needs vs. 0: OR 0.2 [0.1-0.5]). Narratives elucidated how a history of stigmatizing experiences increased discomfort disclosing needs and captured how relationship quality with healthcare teams influenced perceptions of screening for patients with extensive needs.
CONCLUSIONS: Practice-level (screening explanation and therapeutic rapport) and patient-level factors (history and extent of needs) are key influences on comfort with and perceived helpfulness of screening.
CONCLUSIONS: Good communication about screening benefits all patients. Patients with extensive social needs may require additional sensitivity to their past experiences.

BACKGROUND: Patient health-related social needs (HRSN) complicate care and drive poor outcomes in emergency department (ED) settings. This study sought to understand what HRSN information is available to ED physicians and staff, and how HRSN-related clinical actions may or may not align with patient expectations.
METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using in-depth semi-structured interviews guided by HRSN literature, the 5 Rights of Clinical Decision Support (CDS) framework, and the Contextual Information Model. We asked ED providers, ED staff, and ED patients from one health system in the mid-Western United Stated about HRSN information availability during an ED encounter, HRSN data collection, and HRSN data use. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using modified thematic approach.
RESULTS: We conducted 24 interviews (8 per group: ED providers, ED staff, and ED patients) from December 2022 to May 2023. We identified three themes: (1) Availability: ED providers and staff reported that HRSNs information is inconsistently available. The availability of HRSN data is influenced by patient willingness to disclose it during an encounter. (2) Collection: ED providers and staff preferred and predominantly utilized direct conversation with patients to collect HRSNs, despite other methods being available to them (e.g., chart review, screening questionnaires). Patients\' disclosure preferences were based on modality and team member. (3) Use: Patients wanted to be connected to relevant resources to address their HRSNs. Providers and staff altered clinical care to account for or accommodate HRSNs. System-level challenges (e.g., limited resources) limited provider and staff ability to address patients HRSNs.
CONCLUSIONS: In the ED, HRSNs information was inconsistently available, collected, or disclosed. Patients and ED providers and staff differed in their perspectives on how HSRNs should be collected and acted upon. Accounting for such difference in clinical and administrative decisions will be critical for patient acceptance and effective usage of HSRN information.

Because of the established contribution of social factors to health outcomes, approaches that address upstream determinants of health have increasingly been recognized as cost-effective means to improve population health. Understanding and usage of precise terminology is important to facilitate collaboration across disciplines. Social determinants of health affect everyone, not just the socially and economically disadvantaged, whereas health-related social risks (HRSR) are specific adverse conditions at the individual or family level that are associated with poor health and related to the immediate challenges individuals face. Health-related social needs account for patient preference in addressing identified social risks. The use of validated screening tools is important to capture risk factors in a standardized fashion to support research and quality improvement. There is a paucity of studies that address HRSR in the context of radiology. This review provides an understanding of HRSR and outlines various ways in which radiologists can work to mitigate them.

BACKGROUND: Health-related social needs are associated with poor health outcomes, increased acute health care use, and impaired chronic disease management. Given these negative outcomes, an increasing number of national health care organizations have recommended that the health system screen and address unmet health-related social needs as a routine part of clinical care, but there are limited data on how to implement social needs screening in clinical settings to improve the management of chronic diseases such as hypertension. SMS text messaging could be an effective and efficient approach to screen patients; however, there are limited data on the feasibility of using it.
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a cross-sectional study of patients with hypertension to determine the feasibility of using SMS text messaging to screen patients for unmet health-related social needs.
METHODS: We randomly selected 200 patients (≥18 years) from 1 academic health system. Patients were included if they were seen at one of 17 primary care clinics that were part of the academic health system and located in Forsyth County, North Carolina. We limited the sample to patients seen in one of these clinics to provide tailored information about local community-based resources. To ensure that the participants were still patients within the clinic, we only included those who had a visit in the previous 3 months. The SMS text message included a link to 6 questions regarding food, housing, and transportation. Patients who screened positive and were interested received a subsequent message with information about local resources. We assessed the proportion of patients who completed the questions. We also evaluated for the differences in the demographics between patients who completed the questions and those who did not using bivariate analyses.
RESULTS: Of the 200 patients, the majority were female (n=109, 54.5%), non-Hispanic White (n=114, 57.0%), and received commercial insurance (n=105, 52.5%). There were no significant differences in demographics between the 4446 patients who were eligible and the 200 randomly selected patients. Of the 200 patients included, the SMS text message was unable to be delivered to 9 (4.5%) patients and 17 (8.5%) completed the social needs questionnaire. We did not observe a significant difference in the demographic characteristics of patients who did versus did not complete the questionnaire. Of the 17, a total of 5 (29.4%) reported at least 1 unmet need, but only 2 chose to receive resource information.
CONCLUSIONS: We found that only 8.5% (n=17) of patients completed a SMS text message-based health-related social needs questionnaire. SMS text messaging may not be feasible as a single modality to screen patients in this population. Future research should evaluate if SMS text message-based social needs screening is feasible in other populations or effective when paired with other screening modalities.