Adam Schickedanz1, Courtnee Hamity2, Artair Rogers3, Adam L Sharp4,5, Ana Jackson2. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles. 2. Care Management Institute, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA. 3. Health Leads, Boston, MA. 4. Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Research and Evaluation Department. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, Pasadena, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical screening for basic social needs-such as food and housing insecurity-is becoming more common as health systems develop programs to address social determinants of health. Clinician attitudes toward such programs are largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: To describe the attitudes and experiences of social needs screening among a variety of clinicians and other health care professionals. RESEARCH DESIGN: Multicenter electronic and paper-based survey. SUBJECTS: Two hundred fifty-eight clinicians including primarily physicians, social workers, nurses, and pharmacists from a large integrated health system in Southern California. MEASURES: Level of agreement with prompts exploring attitudes toward and barriers to screening and addressing social needs in different clinical settings. RESULTS: Overall, most health professionals supported social needs screening in clinical settings (84%). Only a minority (41%) of clinicians expressed confidence in their ability to address social needs, and less than a quarter (23%) routinely screen for social needs currently. Clinicians perceived lack of time to ask (60%) and resources (50%) to address social needs as their most significant barriers. We found differences by health profession in attitudes toward and barriers to screening for social needs, with physicians more likely to cite time constraints as a barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians largely support social needs programs, but they also recognize key barriers to their implementation. Health systems interested in implementing social needs programs should consider the clinician perspective around the time and resources required for such programs and address these perceived barriers.
BACKGROUND: Clinical screening for basic social needs-such as food and housing insecurity-is becoming more common as health systems develop programs to address social determinants of health. Clinician attitudes toward such programs are largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: To describe the attitudes and experiences of social needs screening among a variety of clinicians and other health care professionals. RESEARCH DESIGN: Multicenter electronic and paper-based survey. SUBJECTS: Two hundred fifty-eight clinicians including primarily physicians, social workers, nurses, and pharmacists from a large integrated health system in Southern California. MEASURES: Level of agreement with prompts exploring attitudes toward and barriers to screening and addressing social needs in different clinical settings. RESULTS: Overall, most health professionals supported social needs screening in clinical settings (84%). Only a minority (41%) of clinicians expressed confidence in their ability to address social needs, and less than a quarter (23%) routinely screen for social needs currently. Clinicians perceived lack of time to ask (60%) and resources (50%) to address social needs as their most significant barriers. We found differences by health profession in attitudes toward and barriers to screening for social needs, with physicians more likely to cite time constraints as a barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians largely support social needs programs, but they also recognize key barriers to their implementation. Health systems interested in implementing social needs programs should consider the clinician perspective around the time and resources required for such programs and address these perceived barriers.
Authors: Mark D Fleming; Janet K Shim; Irene H Yen; Ariana Thompson-Lastad; Sara Rubin; Meredith Van Natta; Nancy J Burke Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Andrew S Garner; Amy Storfer-Isser; Moira Szilagyi; Ruth E K Stein; Cori M Green; Bonnie D Kerker; Karen G O'Connor; Kimberly E Hoagwood; Sarah McCue Horwitz Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Nikki R Lawson; Melissa D Klein; Nicholas J Ollberding; Victoria Wurster Ovalle; Andrew F Beck Journal: Clin Pediatr (Phila) Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 1.168
Authors: Ceara Tess Cunningham; Hude Quan; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Tom Noseworthy; Cynthia A Beck; Elijah Dixon; Susan Samuel; William A Ghali; Lindsay L Sykes; Nathalie Jetté Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2015-04-09 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Mary E Morales; Michael H Epstein; Danelle E Marable; Sarah A Oo; Seth A Berkowitz Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: David A Cook; Christopher M Wittich; Wendlyn L Daniels; Colin P West; Ann M Harris; Timothy J Beebe Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Sophia Kostelanetz; Chiara Di Gravio; Jonathan S Schildcrout; Christianne L Roumie; Douglas Conway; Sunil Kripalani Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 1.847
Authors: Anna Louise Beavis; Awa Sanneh; Rebecca L Stone; Margaret Vitale; Kimberly Levinson; Anne F Rositch; Amanda Nickles Fader; Kristin Topel; Ashley Abing; Stephanie L Wethington Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-05-17 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Chris Miller-Rosales; Jodi McCloskey; Connie S Uratsu; James D Ralston; Elizabeth A Bayliss; Richard W Grant Journal: Med Care Date: 2022-05-30 Impact factor: 3.178