Danielle Cullen1, Ashley Woodford2, Joel Fein3. 1. Division of Emergency Medicine (D Cullen and J Fein), The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Electronic address: CullenDL@email.chop.edu. 2. Department of Neurosurgery (A Woodford), Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia PA. 3. Division of Emergency Medicine (D Cullen and J Fein), The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the growing interest in screening for food insecurity in the clinical setting, little evidence exists regarding screening formats that maximize disclosure and caregiver comfort. METHODS: In this randomized trial, we asked English-speaking adult caregivers of pediatric patients in the emergency department at an urban, freestanding children's hospital to complete a validated, 2-question screen for food insecurity. Respondents were assigned via block randomization to complete the survey by either verbal interview or electronic tablet. Caregivers reported the perceived importance of the screening questions, comfort level with screening in the emergency department or in their child's primary care site, and their preferred screening modality. RESULTS: Of the 1818 participants, 20.6% screened positive for food insecurity. There was a significantly higher rate of reported food insecurity for those screened by tablet (23.6%) compared to those screened verbally (17.7%) (P = .002). Of those who had a preference of screening modality, 83.2% of all participants and 84.5% of patients reporting food insecurity preferred the tablet-based screen over verbal interview. Overall, more participants reported comfort completing the screen in the emergency department compared to their child's doctor's office; however, comfort in both of these setting was rated highly (86.1% vs 80.2%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although both verbal interview and tablet-based screening modalities were effective in identifying food insecurity, tablet-based screening had a higher disclosure rate and was the participants' preferred screening method. There is a high level of comfort with screening regardless of clinical setting; it is possible that an added level of anonymity in the emergency department enhanced participants' comfort levels.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Despite the growing interest in screening for food insecurity in the clinical setting, little evidence exists regarding screening formats that maximize disclosure and caregiver comfort. METHODS: In this randomized trial, we asked English-speaking adult caregivers of pediatric patients in the emergency department at an urban, freestanding children's hospital to complete a validated, 2-question screen for food insecurity. Respondents were assigned via block randomization to complete the survey by either verbal interview or electronic tablet. Caregivers reported the perceived importance of the screening questions, comfort level with screening in the emergency department or in their child's primary care site, and their preferred screening modality. RESULTS: Of the 1818 participants, 20.6% screened positive for food insecurity. There was a significantly higher rate of reported food insecurity for those screened by tablet (23.6%) compared to those screened verbally (17.7%) (P = .002). Of those who had a preference of screening modality, 83.2% of all participants and 84.5% of patients reporting food insecurity preferred the tablet-based screen over verbal interview. Overall, more participants reported comfort completing the screen in the emergency department compared to their child's doctor's office; however, comfort in both of these setting was rated highly (86.1% vs 80.2%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although both verbal interview and tablet-based screening modalities were effective in identifying food insecurity, tablet-based screening had a higher disclosure rate and was the participants' preferred screening method. There is a high level of comfort with screening regardless of clinical setting; it is possible that an added level of anonymity in the emergency department enhanced participants' comfort levels.
Authors: Deborah A Frank; Patrick H Casey; Maureen M Black; Ruth Rose-Jacobs; Mariana Chilton; Diana Cutts; Elizabeth March; Timothy Heeren; Sharon Coleman; Stephanie Ettinger de Cuba; John T Cook Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2010-04-12 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Heather A Eicher-Miller; April C Mason; Connie M Weaver; George P McCabe; Carol J Boushey Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2009-09-23 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: John T Cook; Deborah A Frank; Carol Berkowitz; Maureen M Black; Patrick H Casey; Diana B Cutts; Alan F Meyers; Nieves Zaldivar; Anne Skalicky; Suzette Levenson; Tim Heeren; Mark Nord Journal: J Nutr Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Areej Hassan; Emily A Blood; Aaron Pikcilingis; Emily G Krull; LaQuita McNickles; Glenn Marmon; Sarah Wylie; Elizabeth R Woods; Eric W Fleegler Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Leah Tuzzio; Robert D Wellman; Emilia H De Marchis; Laura M Gottlieb; Callie Walsh-Bailey; Salene M W Jones; Claudia L Nau; John F Steiner; Matthew P Banegas; Adam L Sharp; Alphonse Derus; Cara C Lewis Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2022 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.707
Authors: Jana C Leary; Leena Rijhwani; Natalie M Bettez; Amy M LeClair; Anays Murillo; Maria Rodriguez Berrios; Arvin Garg; Karen M Freund Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Ingrid L Tablazon; Deepak Palakshappa; Faith C O'Brian; Brenda Ramirez; Joseph A Skelton; Laurie W Albertini; Kimberly G Montez Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2021-08-06 Impact factor: 2.993
Authors: Deepak Palakshappa; Andrew J Benefield; Katherine F Furgurson; Michael G Harley; Richa Bundy; Adam Moses; Alysha J Taxter; Andrew S Bensinger; Xiangkun Cao; Nancy Denizard-Thompson; Gary E Rosenthal; David P Miller Journal: Popul Health Manag Date: 2020-09-14 Impact factor: 2.290