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.

UNASSIGNED: Healthcare screening identifies factors that impact patient health and well-being. Hunger as a Vital Sign (HVS) is widely applied as a screening tool to assess food security. However, there are no common practice screening questions to identify patients who are nutrition insecure or acquire free food from community-based organizations. This study used self-reported survey data from a non-Medicaid insured adult population approximately one year after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (2021). The survey examined the extent to which the HVS measure might have under-estimated population-level food insecurity and/or nutrition insecurity, as well as under-identified food and nutrition insecurity among patients being screened for social risks in the healthcare setting.
UNASSIGNED: Data from a 2021 English-only mailed/online survey were analyzed for 2791 Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) non-Medicaid insured members ages 35-85 years. Sociodemographics, financial strain, food insecurity, acquiring free food from community-based organizations, and nutrition insecurity were assessed. Data from respondents\' electronic health records were abstracted to identify adults with diet-related chronic health conditions. Data were weighted to the age × sex × racial/ethnic composition of the 2019 KPNC adult membership. Differences between groups were evaluated for statistical significance using adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) derived from modified log Poisson regression models.
UNASSIGNED: Overall, 8.5% of participants reported moderate or high food insecurity, 7.7% had acquired free food from community-based organizations, and 13% had nutrition insecurity. Black and Latino adults were significantly more likely than White adults to have food insecurity (17.4% and 13.1% vs 5.6%, aPRs = 2.97 and 2.19), acquired free food from community-based organizations (15.1% and 15.3% vs 4.1%, aPRs = 3.74 and 3.93), nutrition insecurity (22.1% and 23.9% vs 7.9%, aPRs = 2.65 and 2.64), and food and nutrition insecurity (32.4% and 32.5% vs 12.3%, aPRs = 2.54 and 2.44). Almost 20% of adults who had been diagnosed with diabetes, prediabetes, ischemic CAD, or heart failure were food insecure and 14% were nutrition insecure.
UNASSIGNED: Expanding food-related healthcare screening to identify and assess food insecurity, nutrition insecurity, and use of community-based emergency food resources together is essential for supporting referrals that will help patients achieve optimal health.

The American Diabetes Association has recommended that diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) teams improve diabetes outcomes by identifying and responding to patients\' social needs. This study examines demographic patterns in how hemoglobin A1c (A1c) is related to individual social needs, reported urgency of those needs, and interest in obtaining assistance. A total of 1125 unique persons who had been referred for DSMES and had completed a social needs screener via our electronic medical record were included. The majority (51.9 %) had an A1c < 8 % at their most recent assessment and most respondents (52.5 %) reported having at least 1 unmet social need (n = 591), Those who reported having at least 1 social need, tended to have higher A1c levels compared with those who reported no social needs (median of 8.0 % versus 7.7 %; p < 0.05). Among Black individuals the associations were stronger (median A1c of 8.2 % among those with versus 7.2 % among those without a reported social need; p < 0.05). However, among White individuals, there was no difference in A1c between these two groups. Among those who reported a social need, those who also reported they needed assistance (35.7 %) tended to have higher A1c levels than those who did not (median 8.3 % versus 7.8 %; p < 0.10). This relationship did not vary by race. Ongoing study of the relationship between unmet social needs and glycemic control is warranted to help identify effective clinical workflows to help providers incorporate consideration of social needs into their medical decision making.

Policy Points State and federal payers are actively considering strategies to increase the adoption of social risk screening and interventions in health care settings, including through the use of financial incentives. Activities related to social care in Oregon community health centers (CHCs) provided a unique opportunity to explore whether and how fee-for-service payments for social risk screening and navigation influence CHC activities. CHC staff, clinicians, and administrative leaders were often unaware of existing financial payments for social risk screening and navigation services. As currently designed, fee-for-service payments are unlikely to strongly influence CHC social care practices.
A growing crop of national policies has emerged to encourage health care delivery systems to ask about and try to address patients\' social risks, e.g., food, housing, and transportation insecurity, in care delivery contexts. In this study, we explored how community health center (CHC) staff perceive the current and potential influence of fee-for-service payments on clinical teams\' engagement in these activities.
We interviewed 42 clinicians, frontline staff, and administrative leaders from 12 Oregon CHC clinical sites about their social care initiatives, including about the role of existing or anticipated financial payments intended to promote social risk screening and referrals to social services. Data were analyzed using both inductive and deductive thematic analysis approaches.
We grouped findings into three categories: participants\' awareness of existing or anticipated financial incentives, uses for incentive dollars, and perceived impact of financial incentives on social care activities in clinical practices. Lack of awareness of existing incentives meant these incentives were not perceived to influence the behaviors of staff responsible for conducting screening and providing referrals. Current or anticipated meaningful uses for incentive dollars included paying for social care staff, providing social services, and supporting additional fundraising efforts. Frontline staff reported that the strongest motivator for clinic social care practices was the ability to provide responsive social services. Clinic leaders/managers noted that for financial incentives to substantively change CHC practices would require payments sizable enough to expand the social care workforce as well.
Small fee-for-service payments to CHCs for social risk screening and navigation services are unlikely to markedly influence CHC social care practices. Refining the design of financial incentives-e.g., by increasing clinical teams\' awareness of incentives, linking screening to well-funded social services, and changing incentive amounts to support social care staffing needs-may increase the uptake of social care practices in CHCs.

Concerns about the opportunity costs of social screening initiatives have led some healthcare organizations to consider using social deprivation indices (area-level social risks) as proxies for self-reported needs (individual-level social risks). Yet, little is known about the effectiveness of such substitutions across different populations.
This analysis explores how well the highest quartile (cold spot) of three different area-level social risk measures-the Social Deprivation Index, Area Deprivation Index, and Neighborhood Stress Score-corresponds with six individual-level social risks and three risk combinations among a national sample of Medicare Advantage members (N=77,503). Data were derived from area-level measures and cross-sectional survey data collected between October 2019 and February 2020. Agreement between individual and individual-level social risks, sensitivity values, specificity values, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values was calculated for all measures in summer/fall 2022.
Agreement between area and individual-level social risks ranged from 53% to 77%. Sensitivity for each risk and risk category never exceeded 42%; specificity values ranged from 62% to 87%. Positive predictive values ranged from 8% to 70%, and negative predictive values ranged from 48% to 93%. There were modest performance discrepancies across area-level measures.
These findings provide additional evidence that area-level deprivation indices may be inconsistent indicators of individual-level social risks, supporting policy efforts to promote individual-level social screening programs in healthcare settings.

Introduction Information about demographic differences in social risks, needs, and attitudes toward social health screening in non-highly vulnerable adult populations is lacking. Methods The authors analyzed data for 2869 Kaiser Permanente Northern California non-Medicaid-covered members aged 35 to 85 who responded to a 2021 English-only mailed/online survey. The survey covered 7 social risk and 11 social needs domains and attitudes toward social health screening. The authors used data weighted to the Kaiser Permanente Northern California membership to estimate prevalence of risks, needs, and screening receptivity in the overall population, by race/ethnicity (White, Black, Latinx, Asian American/Pacific Islander) and age (35-65 years old, 66-85 years old). Multivariable regression was used to evaluate differences between groups. Results Overall, 26% of adults were financially strained, 12% food insecure, 12% housing insecure, and 5% transportation insecure. Additionally, 7%, 8%, and 17% had difficulty paying for utilities, medical expenses, and dental care, respectively. Over 40% of adults wanted help with ≥ 1 social need. Dental care, vision/hearing care, paying for medical expenses and utilities, and managing debt/credit card repayment surpassed food, housing, and transportation needs. Prevalence of social risks and needs was generally higher among middle-aged versus older and Black and Latinx versus White adults. Among the 70% of adults receptive to screening, 85% were willing to complete a questionnaire and 40% were willing to have staff ask questions; 18% did not want to be screened. Conclusion When implementing social health screening in diverse patient populations, the prevalence of social risks and needs, as well as the acceptability of social health screening and screening modalities, will vary among demographic subgroups.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Paid family leave and working conditions are components of employment quality-a key social determinant of health across the life course, particularly during pregnancy. Increased research on prenatal social risk screening has not extended to employment quality. The objective of this systematic review was to identify prenatal screening practices and interventions in health care settings that address employment and working conditions as social risk factors among pregnant adults and to describe their properties and key findings.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PsychINFO, SocINDEX, EMBASE, and the SIREN Evidence and Resource Library for studies published through February 14, 2022. We selected multiple search terms related to four domains: (1) employment or working conditions; (2) screening; (3) health care settings; and (4) pregnancy or maternal health.
RESULTS: Of the 2317 unique titles and abstracts that were potentially relevant, eight articles met all inclusion criteria and focused on pregnant populations. The content of identified screening practices varied substantially, highlighting the multiple ways employment is conceptualized as a potential risk factor. Few studies included multidimensional measures of employment to assess working conditions, which may be particularly relevant during pregnancy.
CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggests that screening for employment as a social risk factor does not regularly occur in prenatal care. Although pragmatic properties of the screening tools we assessed are promising, tools seldom examine the multidimensional nature of work. Understanding the principal intent of screening for employment prenatally could provide greater opportunity to collect and interpret contextual factors that influence how both providers and patients respond to social risk.

Despite increasing resources dedicated to identifying and addressing social risks in health care settings, many patients screening positive for social risks either decline assistance or do not follow up with offered resources. This study assessed predictors of engagement with offered social care assistance through guided self-navigation or in-person assistance. Data came from a cross-sectional analysis of 6-month follow-up survey data from an ongoing trial of participants with poorly controlled diabetes and a positive social risk screen randomized to guided online self-navigation or in-person social care assistance. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated participant characteristics associated with engagement with offered assistance. Mean age was 55 years (standard deviation = 12). Of 407 participants, 41% (n = 165) engaged with offered assistance: 76% (n = 137) of those in the guided self-navigation arm and 13% (n = 28) of those in the in-person assistance arm. A sizable proportion of participants endorsed already using assistance for medications (30%), food (26%), and employment (22%). Female gender [OR 1.57, 95% CI (1.03-2.40), P < 0.05] and being out of the workforce [OR 1.71, 95% CI (1.07-2.73), P < 0.05] predicted engagement with social care assistance. Those already using assistance for medications [OR 4.71, 95% CI (1.69-13.15), P < 0.05] and blood glucose supplies [OR 6.25, 95% CI (1.45-26.78) P < 0.05] were also more likely to engage with offered assistance. Fewer than half of individuals engaged with offered social assistance through either guided online self-navigation or in-person assistance; limited demographic and clinical factors predicted uptake. More investments are needed to understand how best to support uptake of offered assistance.

暂无摘要。