Dataset Information

Food for Thought: A Randomized Trial of Food Insecurity Screening in the Emergency Department.

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.

SUBMITTER: Cullen D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6625934 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Food for Thought: A Randomized Trial of Food Insecurity Screening in the Emergency Department.

Cullen Danielle D Woodford Ashley A Fein Joel J

Academic pediatrics 20190111 6

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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 t ...[more]

PMID: 30639763

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionChildren with food insecurity (FI) experience adverse health outcomes due to inadequate quantity or quality of food. Food insecurity may be high among families seeking emergency care. The Hunger Vital Sign (HVS) is a two-question validated tool used to screen families for FI. Our goal in this study was to assess prevalence of FI among emergency department (ED) patients, patient-level risk factors for FI, and the feasibility of screening.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional analysis of FI in the ED. Parents or guardians of ED patients and adult patients (18 years or older) were approached for screening using the HVS during screening periods spanning weekdays/weekends and days/evenings. All ED patients were eligible, excluding siblings, repeat visits, critically ill patients, minors without a guardian, and families that healthcare staff asked us not to disturb. Families answered the HVS questions verbally or in writing, based on preference. Families with positive screens received information about food resources. We summarized patient and visit characteristics and defined medical complexity using a published algorithm. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess FI risk factors.ResultsIn July-August 2019, 527 patients presented during screening periods: 439 agreed to screening, 18 declined, 19 met exclusions, and 51 were missed. On average the screening tool required five minutes (range 3-10 minutes) to complete. Most families (328; 75%) preferred to answer in writing rather than verbally. Overall, 77 participants (17.5%) screened positive for FI. In regression analyses, FI was associated with self-reported race/ethnicity (combined variable) of African American or Black (odds ratio [OR] 5.21, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13-12.77), Hispanic (OR 3.47, 95% CI, 1.48-8.15), or mixed/other (OR 3.81, 95% CI, 1.54-9.39), compared to non-Hispanic white. FI was also associated with public insurance type (OR 5.74, 95% CI, 2.52-13.07, reference: private insurance), and each year of increasing patient age (OR 1.05, 95% CI, 1.01-1.09). There were no associations between FI and medical complexity or preferred language.ConclusionFood insecurity was common among our ED patients. Race and ethnicity, insurance status, and increasing patient age were associated with increased odds of FI. Efforts to include universal FI screening for ED patients with immediate connection to resources will enhance overall care quality and address important health needs.

Project description:ImportanceThe National HIV Strategic Plan for the US recommends HIV screening in emergency departments (EDs). The most effective approach to ED-based HIV screening remains unknown.ObjectiveTo compare strategies for HIV screening when integrated into usual ED practice.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial included patients visiting EDs at 4 US urban hospitals between April 2014 and January 2016. Patients included were ages 16 years or older, not critically ill or mentally altered, not known to have an HIV positive status, and with an anticipated length of stay 30 minutes or longer. Data were analyzed through March 2021.InterventionsConsecutive patients underwent concealed randomization to either nontargeted screening, enhanced targeted screening using a quantitative HIV risk prediction tool, or traditional targeted screening as adapted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Screening was integrated into clinical practice using opt-out consent and fourth-generation antigen-antibody assays.Main outcomes and measuresNew HIV diagnoses using intention-to-treat analysis, absolute differences, and risk ratios (RRs).ResultsA total of 76 561 patient visits were randomized; median (interquartile range) age was 40 (28-54) years, 34 807 patients (51.2%) were women, and 26 776 (39.4%) were Black, 22 131 (32.6%) non-Hispanic White, and 14 542 (21.4%) Hispanic. A total of 25 469 were randomized to nontargeted screening; 25 453, enhanced targeted screening; and 25 639, traditional targeted screening. Of the nontargeted group, 6744 participants (26.5%) completed testing and 10 (0.15%) were newly diagnosed; of the enhanced targeted group, 13 883 participants (54.5%) met risk criteria, 4488 (32.3%) completed testing, and 7 (0.16%) were newly diagnosed; and of the traditional targeted group, 7099 participants (27.7%) met risk criteria, 3173 (44.7%) completed testing, and 7 (0.22%) were newly diagnosed. When compared with nontargeted screening, targeted strategies were not associated with a higher rate of new diagnoses (enhanced targeted and traditional targeted combined: difference, -0.01%; 95% CI, -0.04% to 0.02%; RR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.56; P = .38; and enhanced targeted only: difference, -0.01%; 95% CI, -0.04% to 0.02%; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.84; P = .47).Conclusions and relevanceTargeted HIV screening was not superior to nontargeted HIV screening in the ED. Nontargeted screening resulted in significantly more tests performed, although all strategies identified relatively low numbers of new HIV diagnoses.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01781949.

Project description:We compare rates of rapid HIV testing, test offer, and acceptance in an urban emergency department (ED) when conducted by dedicated HIV counselors versus current members of the ED staff.The Universal Screening for HIV Infection in the Emergency Room [USHER] trial is a prospective randomized controlled trial that implemented an HIV screening program in the ED of an urban tertiary medical center. ED patients were screened and consented for trial enrollment by an USHER research assistant. Eligible subjects were randomized to rapid HIV testing (oral OraQuick) offered by a dedicated counselor (counselor arm) or by an ED provider (provider arm). In the counselor arm, counselors-without other clinical responsibilities-assumed nearly all testing-related activities (consent, counseling, delivery of test results). In the provider arm, trained ED emergency service assistants (nursing assistants) consented and tested the participant in the context of other ED-related responsibilities. In this arm, ED house officers, physician assistants, or attending physicians provided HIV test results to trial participants. Outcome measures were rates of HIV testing and test offer among individuals consenting for study participation. Among individuals offered the test, test acceptance was also measured.From February 2007 through July 2008, 8,187 eligible patients were approached in the ED, and 4,855 (59%) consented and were randomized to trial participation. The mean age was 37 years, 65% were women, and 42% were white. The overall testing rate favored the counselor arm (57% versus 27%; P<.001); 80% (1,959/2,446) of subjects in the counselor arm were offered an HIV test compared with 36% (861/2,409) in the provider arm (P<.001). HIV test acceptance was slightly higher in the provider arm (counselor arm 71% versus provider arm 75%; P = .025).Routine rapid HIV testing in the ED was accomplished more frequently by dedicated HIV counselors than by ED staff in the course of routine clinical work. Without dedicated staff, HIV testing in this setting may not be truly routine.

Project description:BackgroundAs the leading cause of emergency department visits in Canada, pain disproportionately affects socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. We examine the association between household food insecurity and individuals' pain-driven emergency department visits.MethodsWe designed a cross-sectional study linking the Canadian Community Health Survey 2005-2017 to the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System 2003-2017. Food insecurity was measured using a validated questionnaire. We excluded individuals with missing food insecurity status, individuals younger than 12 years and jurisdiction-years with partial emergency department records. We assessed emergency department visits driven by pain at different sites (migraine, other headaches, chest-throat pain, abdomen-pelvis pain, dorsalgia, joint pain, limb pain, other pain) and their characteristics (frequency, cause, acuity and time of emergency department visit) in Ontario and Alberta. We adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, lifestyle and prior non-pain-driven emergency department visits in the models.ResultsThe sample contained 212 300 individuals aged 12 years and older. Compared with food-secure individuals, marginally, moderately and severely food-insecure people had 1.42 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-1.68), 1.64 (95% CI 1.37-1.96) and 1.99 (95% CI 1.61-2.46) times higher adjusted incidence rates of pain-driven emergency department visits, respectively. The association was similar across sexes and significant among adults but not adolescents. Food insecurity was further associated with site-specific pain, with severely food-insecure individuals having significantly higher pain incidence than food-secure individuals. Severe food insecurity predicted more frequent, multicause, high-acuity and after-hours emergency department visits.InterpretationHousehold food insecurity status is significantly associated with pain-driven emergency department visits in the Canadian population. Policies targeting food insecurity may reduce pain and emergency department utilization.

Project description:ImportanceThe delivery of palliative care is not standard of care within most emergency departments (EDs).ObjectiveTo compare quality of life, depression, health care utilization, and survival in ED patients with advanced cancer randomized to ED-initiated palliative care consultation vs care as usual.Design, setting, and participantsA single-blind, randomized clinical trial of ED-initiated palliative care consultation for patients with advanced cancer vs usual care took place from June 2011 to April 2014 at an urban, academic ED at a quaternary care referral center. Adult patients with advanced cancer who were able to pass a cognitive screen, had never been seen by palliative care, spoke English or Spanish, and presented to the ED met eligibility criteria; 136 of 298 eligible patients were approached and enrolled in the ED and randomized via balanced block randomization.InterventionsIntervention participants received a comprehensive palliative care consultation by the inpatient team, including an assessment of symptoms, spiritual and/or social needs, and goals of care.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was quality of life as measured by the change in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Measure (FACT-G) score at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included major depressive disorder as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, health care utilization at 180 days, and survival at 1 year.ResultsA total of 136 participants were enrolled, and 69 allocated to palliative care (mean [SD], 55.1 [13.1] years) and 67 were randomized to usual care (mean [SD], 57.8 [14.7] years). Quality of life, as measured by a change in FACT-G score from enrollment to 12 weeks, was significantly higher in patients randomized to the intervention group, who demonstrated a mean (SD) increase of 5.91 (16.65) points compared with 1.08 (16.00) in controls (P = .03 using the nonparametric Wilcoxon test). Median estimates of survival were longer in the intervention group than the control group: 289 (95% CI, 128-453) days vs 132 (95% CI, 80-302) days, although this did not reach statistical significance (P = .20). There were no statistically significant differences in depression, admission to the intensive care unit, and discharge to hospice.Conclusions and relevanceEmergency department-initiated palliative care consultation in advanced cancer improves quality of life in patients with advanced cancer and does not seem to shorten survival; the impact on health care utilization and depression is less clear and warrants further study.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01358110.

Dataset Information

Food for Thought: A Randomized Trial of Food Insecurity Screening in the Emergency Department.

Publications

Food for Thought: A Randomized Trial of Food Insecurity Screening in the Emergency Department.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets