Anil Kopparapu1, Greg Sketas1, Taren Swindle1. 1. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Screening for and addressing food insecurity in primary care may improve associated comorbidities. The purpose of this study was to explore patient attitudes regarding screening for food insecurity and to elicit patient preferences for intervention in a primary care setting. METHODS: Patients (N=284) completed a brief, voluntary survey in a university-based clinic and two community-based clinics over a 5-month period. Respondents were classified as either food-secure or food-insecure based on their responses to a validated food insecurity screener. RESULTS: Participants stated that screening for food insecurity was valuable in the primary care setting (83.9%). Patients preferred having a nurse ask the screening questions (41.2%). The most popular intervention preference, regardless of food security status or clinic type, was to provide a list of food bank locations (76.4%) and local community organizations (71.6%) and to have referral to financial assistance programs (75.4%). There were no differences in preferences for screening or attitudes toward screening by food security status or clinic type (all P≥.05). CONCLUSIONS: Screening for food insecurity is not yet standard practice, partly due to concerns over potentially alienating patients with the screening questions. Based on our surveyed patient population and their indicated preferences, screening and providing resource referrals for food insecurity is not likely to damage the clinician-patient relationship.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Screening for and addressing food insecurity in primary care may improve associated comorbidities. The purpose of this study was to explore patient attitudes regarding screening for food insecurity and to elicit patient preferences for intervention in a primary care setting. METHODS:Patients (N=284) completed a brief, voluntary survey in a university-based clinic and two community-based clinics over a 5-month period. Respondents were classified as either food-secure or food-insecure based on their responses to a validated food insecurity screener. RESULTS:Participants stated that screening for food insecurity was valuable in the primary care setting (83.9%). Patients preferred having a nurse ask the screening questions (41.2%). The most popular intervention preference, regardless of food security status or clinic type, was to provide a list of food bank locations (76.4%) and local community organizations (71.6%) and to have referral to financial assistance programs (75.4%). There were no differences in preferences for screening or attitudes toward screening by food security status or clinic type (all P≥.05). CONCLUSIONS: Screening for food insecurity is not yet standard practice, partly due to concerns over potentially alienating patients with the screening questions. Based on our surveyed patient population and their indicated preferences, screening and providing resource referrals for food insecurity is not likely to damage the clinician-patient relationship.
Authors: Catherine Kress; Jaya Durvasula; Andrea Knievel; Amanda M Honsvall Hoefler; Lynn P Manning; Donald J Pine; Deborah Mullen; Allyson Hayward Journal: PRiMER Date: 2021-11-03