Search

The field of pediatrics has pioneered approaches to mitigating poverty's harmful effects on children's health and development. Clinical interventions for systematically addressing material hardships due to poverty within the context of pediatric care delivery, however, are still in their infancy. Since the American Academy of Pediatrics published its policy statement on Child Health and Poverty in the United States in 2016, interest has surged in the development and implementation of care models that systematically identify and address social risks and/or social needs. This article explores this major shift in interest, research, and investment in such interventions within pediatric care. We provide an overview of current screening and referral models for addressing poverty-related social factors and explore the strengths and weaknesses of these varied approaches. We summarize the current evidence supporting such clinical approaches, and comment on the importance of multi-sectoral partnerships in addressing families' and communities' needs. Lastly, we propose future directions for research and pediatric practice that may enhance the uptake of social risks/needs interventions and bolster the evidence of their effectiveness. Though clinical approaches for addressing material hardship may be limited by an insufficient social safety net and other barriers, interventions to identify and address families' social risks and social needs have the potential to combat poverty's impact on children and advance health equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. To characterize the association between social needs prevalence and no-show proportion and variation in these associations among specific social needs. Methods. In this study, we used results from a 10-item social needs screener conducted across 19 primary care practices in a large urban health system in Bronx County, New York, between April 2018 and July 2019. We estimated the association between unmet needs and 2-year history of missed appointments from 41 637 patients by using negative binomial regression models. Results. The overall no-show appointment proportion was 26.6%. Adjusted models suggest that patients with 1 or more social needs had a significantly higher no-show proportion (31.5%) than those without any social needs (26.3%), representing an 19.8% increase (P <.001). We observed a positive trend (P <.001) between the number of reported social needs and the no-show proportion—26.3% for those with no needs, 30.0% for 1 need, 32.1% for 2 needs, and 33.8% for 3 or more needs. The strongest association was for those with health care transportation need as compared with those without (36.0% vs 26.9%). Conclusions. We found unmet social needs to have a significant association with missed primary care appointments with potential implications on cost, quality, and access for health systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Health systems are increasingly interested in addressing the social determinants of health via social risk screening. The objective of this study is to understand the variability in the number and types of social risks overall and in population subgroups among primary care patients routinely screened in a large urban health system., Methods: Between April and December 2018, a total of 24,633 primary care patients completed a 10-item screener across 19 ambulatory sites within a health system in the Bronx, NY. The prevalence of any social risk and specific social risks was estimated overall and for population subgroups. Wald tests were used to determine statistically significant differences by subgroup. Data were analyzed in winter/spring 2019., Results: Twenty percent of patients presented with at least 1 social risk. The most frequently reported risks included housing quality (6.5%) and food insecurity (6.1%). Middle-aged (30-59 years) respondents (24.7%, 95% CI=23.6%, 25.7%) compared with those aged 18-29 years (17.7%, 95% CI=16.4%, 19.2%, p<0.001), and Medicaid patients (24.8%, 95% CI=24.0%, 25.5%) compared with commercially insured patients (11.8%, 95% CI=11.1%, 12.5%, p<0.001), were more likely to report social risks. The strongest predictor of housing quality risk was residing in public housing (15.1%, 95% CI=13.8%, 16.6%) compared with those not in public housing (5.6%, 95% CI=5.3%, 5.9%, p<0.001). Housing quality was the most frequently reported risk for children (aged <18 years) and older adults (aged ≥70 years), whereas, for middle-aged respondents (30-69 years), it was food insecurity., Conclusions: There are important differences in the prevalence of overall and individual social risks by subgroup. These findings should be considered to inform clinical care and social risk screening and interventions., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)