Dataset Information

Patients' Willingness to Accept Social Needs Navigation After In-Person versus Remote Screening.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Social needs screening and referral interventions are increasingly common in health care settings. Although remote screening offers a potentially more practical alternative to traditional in-person screening, there is concern that screening patients remotely could adversely affect patient engagement, including interest in accepting social needs navigation.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study using a multivariable logistic regression analysis and data from the Accountable Health Communities (AHC) model in Oregon. Participants were Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries in the AHC model from October 2018 through December 2020. The outcome variable was patients' willingness to accept social needs navigation assistance. We included an interaction term (total number of social needs + screening mode) to test whether in-person versus remote screening was an effect modifier.

Results

The study included participants who screened positive for ≥1 social need(s); 43% were screened in person and 57% remotely. Overall, 71% of participants were willing to accept help with social needs. Neither screening mode nor interaction term were significantly associated with willingness to accept navigation assistance.

Conclusions

Among patients presenting with similar numbers of social needs, results indicate that type of screening mode may not adversely affect patients' willingness to accept health care-based navigation for social needs.

SUBMITTER: Steeves-Reece AL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10476619 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patients' Willingness to Accept Social Needs Navigation After In-Person versus Remote Screening.

Steeves-Reece Anna Louise AL Davis Melinda Marie MM Hiebert Larson Jean J Major-McDowall Zoe Z King Anne Elizabeth AE Nicolaidis Christina C Goldberg Bruce B Richardson Dawn Michele DM Lindner Stephan S

Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM 20230303 2

<h4>Background</h4>Social needs screening and referral interventions are increasingly common in health care settings. Although remote screening offers a potentially more practical alternative to traditional in-person screening, there is concern that screening patients remotely could adversely affect patient engagement, including interest in accepting social needs navigation.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a cross-sectional study using a multivariable logistic regression analysis and data from the A ...[more]

PMID: 36868871

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe the level of overdetection people would find acceptable in screening for breast, prostate, and bowel cancer and whether acceptability is influenced by the magnitude of the benefit from screening and the cancer specific harms from overdetection.DesignOnline survey. Women were presented with scenarios on breast and bowel cancer, men with scenarios on prostate and bowel cancer. For each particular cancer, we presented epidemiological information and described the treatment and its consequences. Secondly, we presented two different scenarios of benefit: one indicating a 10% reduction in cancer specific mortality and the second indicating a 50% reduction.SettingOnline survey of the population in the United Kingdom.ParticipantsRespondents were part of an existing panel of people who volunteer for online research and were invited by email or online marketing. We recruited 1000 respondents, representative for age and sex for the UK population.Main outcome measuresNumber of cases of overdetection people were willing to accept, ranging from 0-1000 (complete screened population) for each cancer modality and each scenario of benefit.ResultsThere was large variability between respondents in the level of overdetection they would find acceptable, with medians ranging from 113 to 313 cases of overdetection per 1000 people screened. Across all scenarios, 4-7% of respondents indicated they would accept no overdetection at all compared with 7-14% who thought that it would be acceptable for the entire screened population to be overdetected. Acceptability in screening for bowel cancer was significantly lower than for breast and prostate cancer. People aged 50 or over accepted significantly less overdetection, whereas people with higher education levels accepted more; 29% of respondents had heard of overdetection before.ConclusionsAcceptability of overdetection in cancer screening is variable. Invitations for screening should include clear information on the likelihood and consequences of overdetection to allow people to make an informed choice.

Project description:BackgroundAs more health care organizations integrate social needs screening and navigation programs into clinical care delivery, the patient perspective is necessary to guide implementation and achieve patient-centered care.ObjectivesTo examine patients' perceptions of whether social needs affect health and attitudes toward healthcare system efforts to screen for and address social needs.Research designMulti-site, self-administered survey to assess (1) patient perceptions of the health impact of commonly identified social needs; (2) experience of social needs; (3) degree of support for a health system addressing social needs, including which social needs should be screened for and intervened upon; and (4) attitudes toward a health system utilizing resources to address social needs. Analyses were conducted using multivariable logistic regression models with clinic site cluster adjustment.SubjectsAdult patients at seven primary care clinics within a large, integrated health system in Southern California.Main measuresSurvey measures of experience with, acceptability of, and attitudes toward clinical social determinants of health screening and navigation.Key resultsA total of 1161 patients participated, representing a 79% response rate. Most respondents (69%) agreed that social needs impact health and agreed their health system should ask about social needs (85%) and help address social needs (88%). Patients with social needs in the last year were more likely to (1) agree social needs impact health (OR 10.2, p < 0.001), (2) support their health system asking patients about social needs (OR 3.7, p < 0.001), and (3) support addressing patient social needs (OR 3.5, p < 0.001). Differences by social need history, gender, age, race, ethnicity, and education were found.ConclusionsMost patients at a large integrated health system supported clinical social needs screening and intervention. Differences in attitudes by social need history, gender, age, race, ethnicity, and education may indicate opportunities to develop more equitable, patient-centered approaches to addressing social needs.

Project description:Importance:While many organizations endorse screening for social risk factors in clinical settings, few studies have examined the health and utilization effects of interventions to address social needs. Objective:To compare the acute care utilization effects of a written resources handout vs an in-person navigation service intervention to address social needs. Design, Settings, and Participants:In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, 1809 adult caregivers of pediatric patients seen in primary and urgent care clinics of 2 safety-net hospitals in northern California were recruited between October 13, 2013, and August 27, 2015. Each participating family was randomly assigned to an in-person navigator intervention vs active control to address the family's social needs. Analyses were conducted between February 28, 2018, and September 25, 2019. Interventions:Caregivers either received written information about relevant local resources related to social needs (active control) or met with a patient navigator focused on helping them resolve social needs (navigator intervention). After an initial in-person visit, navigation services included telephone, email, and/or in-person follow-up for up to 3 months. Main Outcome and Measures:Child emergency department visit or hospitalization within 12 months of study enrollment. Results:Among the 1300 caregivers enrolled in the study without missing follow-up data, most spoke English (878 [67.5%]) and were women (1127 [86.7%]), with a mean (SD) age of 33.0 (9.33) years. Most children were aged 0 to 5 years (779 of 1300 [59.9%]), 723 children (55.6%) had Hispanic ethnicity, and 462 children (35.5%) were in excellent health; 840 families (64.6%) were recruited from urgent care. In total, 637 families (49.0%) were randomized to the in-person navigator group and 663 (51.0%) to the active control group. There was no difference in risk of an emergency department visit between the 2 groups. Children enrolled in the in-person navigator group had a decreased risk of hospitalization within 12 months (hazard ratio, 0.59; 05% CI, 0.38-0.94; P = .03), making them 69% less likely to be hospitalized. Conclusions and Relevance:In this randomized clinical trial evaluating heath care utilization effects of programs designed to address social needs among families, children enrolled in the navigation group were significantly less likely to be hospitalized after the intervention but equally likely to have an emergency department visit. These findings strengthen our understanding of the effects of addressing social needs in clinical settings as part of a comprehensive strategy to improve health and reduce health care utilization. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01939704.

Project description:BackgroundSocial needs inhibit receipt of timely medical care. Social needs screening is a vital part of comprehensive cancer care, and patient navigators are well-positioned to screen for and address social needs. This mixed methods project describes social needs screening implementation in a prospective pragmatic patient navigation intervention trial for minoritized women newly diagnosed with breast cancer.MethodsTranslating Research Into Practice (TRIP) was conducted at five cancer care sites in Boston, MA from 2018 to 2022. The patient navigation intervention protocol included completion of a social needs screening survey covering 9 domains (e.g., food, transportation) within 90 days of intake. We estimated the proportion of patients who received a social needs screening within 90 days of navigation intake. A multivariable log binomial regression model estimated the adjusted rate ratios (aRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of patient socio-demographic characteristics and screening delivery. Key informant interviews with navigators (n = 8) and patients (n = 21) assessed screening acceptability and factors that facilitate and impede implementation. Using a convergent, parallel mixed methods approach, findings from each data source were integrated to interpret study results.ResultsPatients' (n = 588) mean age was 59 (SD = 13); 45% were non-Hispanic Black and 27% were Hispanic. Sixty-nine percent of patients in the navigators' caseloads received social needs screening. Patients of non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (aRR = 1.25; 95% CI = 1.06-1.48) and those with Medicare insurance (aRR = 1.13; 95% CI = 1.04-1.23) were more likely to be screened. Screening was universally acceptable to navigators and generally acceptable to patients. Systems-based supports for improving implementation were identified.ConclusionsSocial needs screening was acceptable, yet with modest implementation. Continued systems-based efforts to integrate social needs screening in medical care are needed.

Project description:BackgroundPrice negotiations for specialty pharmaceuticals take place in a complex market setting. The determination of the added value of new treatments and the related societal willingness to pay are of increasing importance in policy reform debates. From a behavioural economics perspective, potential cognitive biases and other-regarding concerns affecting outcomes of reimbursement negotiations are of interest. An experimental setting to investigate social preferences in reimbursement negotiations for novel, oncology pharmaceuticals was used. Of interest were differences in social preferences caused by incremental changes of the patient outcome.MethodsAn online experiment was conducted in two separate runs (n = 202, n = 404) on the Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform. Populations were split into two (run one) and four (run two) equally sized treatment groups for hypothetical reimbursement decisions. Participants were randomly assigned to the role of a public price regulator for pharmaceuticals (buyer) or a representative of a pharmaceutical company (seller). In run two, role groups were further split into two different price magnitude framings ("real world" vs unconverted "real payoff" prices). Decisions had real monetary effects on other participants (in the role of premium payers or investors) and via charitable donations to a patient organisation (patient benefit).Results56 (run one) and 59 (run two) percent of participants stated strictly monotone preferences for incremental patient benefit. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) against standard of care (SoC) was higher than the initial ICER of the SoC against no care. Regulators stated lower reservation prices in the "real world" prices group compared to their colleagues in the unconverted payoff group. No price group showed any reluctance to trade. Overall, regulators rated the relevance of the patient for their decision higher and the relevance of their own role lower compared to sellers.ConclusionsThe price magnitude of current oncology treatments affects stated preferences for incremental survival, and assigned responsibilities lead to different opinions on the relevance of affected stakeholders. The design is useful to further assess effects of reimbursement negotiations on societal outcomes like affordability (cost) or availability (access) of new pharmaceuticals and test behavioural policy interventions.

Project description:BackgroundElevated blood pressure is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and stroke but patients often discount recommended behavioral changes and prescribed medications. While effective interventions to promote adherence have been developed, cost-effectiveness from the patient's perspective, has not been well studied. The valuation of patient time and out of pocket expenses should be included while performing cost effectiveness evaluation. The Achieve BP study uses the contingent valuation method to assess willingness to accept (WTA) and willingness to pay (WTP) among patients with a history of uncontrolled blood pressure discharged from an urban emergency department and enrolled in a larger randomized controlled trial.MethodsWTA and WTP were assessed by asking patients a series of questions about time and travel costs and time value related to their study participation. A survey was conducted during the final study visit with patients to investigate the effectiveness of a kiosk-based educational intervention on blood pressure control. All study patients, regardless of study arm, received the same clinical protocol of commonly prescribed antihypertensive medication and met with research clinicians four times as part of the study procedures.ResultsThirty-eight patients were offered the opportunity to participate in the cost-effectiveness study and all completed the survey. Statistical comparisons revealed these 38 patients were similar in representation to the entire RCT study population. All 38 (100.0%) were African-American, with an average age of 49.1 years; 55.3% were male, 21.1% were married, 78.9% had a high school or higher education, and 44.7% were working. 55.9% did not have a primary care provider and 50.0% did not have health insurance. Time price linear regression analysis was performed to estimate predictors of WTA and WTP.ConclusionsWTP and WTA may generate different results, and the elasticities were proportional to the estimated coefficients, with WTP about twice as responsive as WTA. An additional feature for health services research was successful piloting in a clinical setting of a brief patient-centered cost effectiveness survey.Trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov . Registration Number NCT02069015 . Registered February 19, 2014 (Retrospectively registered).

Dataset Information

Patients' Willingness to Accept Social Needs Navigation After In-Person versus Remote Screening.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Patients' Willingness to Accept Social Needs Navigation After In-Person versus Remote Screening.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets