Dataset Information

Basic social resource needs screening in the gynecologic oncology clinic: a quality improvement initiative.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Social determinants of health are known to contribute to disparities in health outcomes. Routine screening for basic social needs is not a part of standard care; however, the association of those needs with increased healthcare utilization and poor compliance with guideline-directed care is well established.

Objective

In this study, we aimed to assess the prevalence of basic social resource needs identified through a quality improvement initiative in a gynecologic oncology outpatient clinic. In addition, we aimed to identify clinical and demographic factors associated with having basic social resource needs.

Study design

We performed a prospective cohort study of women presenting to a gynecologic oncology clinic at an urban academic institution who were screened for basic social resource needs as part of a quality improvement initiative from July 2017 to May 2018. The following 8 domains of resource needs were assessed: food insecurity, housing insecurity, utility needs, financial strain, transportation, childcare, household items, and difficulty reading hospital materials. Women with needs were referred to resources to address those needs. Demographic and clinical information were collected for each patient. The prevalence of needs and successful follow-up interventions were calculated. Patient factors independently associated with having at least 1 basic social resource need were identified using multivariable Poisson regression.

Results

A total of 752 women were screened in the study period, of whom 274 (36%) reported 1 or more basic social resource need, with a median of 1 (range, 1-7) need. Financial strain was the most commonly reported need (171 of 752, 23%), followed by transportation (119 of 752, 16%), difficulty reading hospital materials (54 of 752, 7%), housing insecurity (31 of 752, 4%), food insecurity (28 of 752, 4%), household items (22 of 752, 3%), childcare (15 of 752, 2%), and utility needs (13 of 752, 2%). On multivariable analysis, independent factors associated with having at least 1 basic social resource need were being single, divorced or widowed, nonwhite race, current smoker, nonprivate insurance, and a history of anxiety or depression. A total of 36 of 274 (13%) women who screened positive requested assistance and were referred to resources to address those needs. Of the 36 women, 25 (69%) successfully accessed a resource or felt equipped to address their needs, 9 (25%) could not be reached despite repeated attempts, and 2 (6%) declined assistance.

Conclusion

Basic social resource needs are prevalent in women presenting to an urban academic gynecologic oncology clinic and can be identified and addressed through routine screening. To help mitigate ongoing disparities in this population, screening for and addressing basic social resource needs should be incorporated into routine comprehensive care in gynecologic oncology clinics.

SUBMITTER: Beavis AL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8340269 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInterest is growing in interventions to address social needs in clinical settings. However, little is known about patients' perceptions and experiences with these interventions.ObjectiveTo evaluate patients' experiences and patient-reported outcomes of a primary care-based intervention to help patients connect with community resources using trained volunteer advocates.DesignQualitative telephone interviews with patients who had worked with the volunteer advocates. Sample and recruitment targets were equally distributed between patients who had at least one reported success in meeting an identified need and those who had no reported needs met, based on the database used to document patient encounters.ParticipantsOne hundred two patients.InterventionsPatients at the study clinic were periodically screened for social needs. If needs were identified, they were referred to a trained volunteer advocate who further assessed their needs, provided them with resource referrals, and followed up with them on whether their need was met.ApproachThematic analysis was used to code the data.Key resultsInterviewed patients appreciated the services offered, especially the follow-up. Patients' ability to access the resource to which they were referred was enhanced by assistance with filling out forms, calling community resources, and other types of navigation. Patients also reported that interacting with the advocates made them feel listened to and cared for, which they perceived as noteworthy in their lives.ConclusionsThis patient-reported information provides key insights into a human-centered intervention in a clinical environment. Our findings highlight what works in clinical interventions addressing social needs and provide outcomes that are difficult to measure using existing quantitative metrics. Patients experienced the intervention as a therapeutic relationship/working alliance, a type of care that correlates with positive outcomes such as treatment adherence and quality of life. These insights will help design more patient-centered approaches to providing holistic patient care.

Project description:Importance:It is unclear if helping patients meet resource needs, such as difficulty affording food, housing, or medications, improves clinical outcomes. Objective:To determine the effectiveness of the Health Leads program on improvement in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP, respectively), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level, and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level. Design, Setting, and Participants:A difference-in-difference evaluation of the Health Leads program was conducted from October 1, 2012, through September 30, 2015, at 3 academic primary care practices. Health Leads consists of screening for unmet needs at clinic visits, and offering those who screen positive to meet with an advocate to help obtain resources, or receive brief information provision. Main Outcomes and Measures:Changes in SBP, DBP, LDL-C level, and HbA1c level. We compared those who screened positive for unmet basic needs (Health Leads group) with those who screened negative, using intention-to-treat, and, secondarily, between those who did and did not enroll in Health Leads, using linear mixed modeling, examining the period before and after screening. Results:A total of 5125 people were screened, using a standardized form, for unmet basic resource needs; 3351 screened negative and 1774 screened positive. For those who screened positive, the mean age was 57.6 years and 1811 (56%) were women. For those who screened negative, the mean age was 56.7 years and 909 (57%) were women. Of 5125 people screened, 1774 (35%) reported at least 1 unmet need, and 1021 (58%) of those enrolled in Health Leads. Median follow-up for those who screened positive and negative was 34 and 32 months, respectively. In unadjusted intention-to-treat analyses of 1998 participants with hypertension, the Health Leads group experienced greater reduction in SBP (differential change, -1.2; 95% CI, -2.1 to -0.4) and DBP (differential change, -1.0; 95% CI, -1.5 to -0.5). For 2281 individuals with an indication for LDL-C level lowering, results also favored the Health Leads group (differential change, -3.7; 95% CI -6.7 to -0.6). For 774 individuals with diabetes, the Health Leads group did not show HbA1c level improvement (differential change, -0.04%; 95% CI, -0.17% to 0.10%). Results adjusted for baseline demographic and clinical differences were not qualitatively different. Among those who enrolled in Health Leads program, there were greater BP and LDL-C level improvements than for those who declined (SBP differential change -2.6; 95% CI,-3.5 to -1.7; SBP differential change, -1.4; 95% CI, -1.9 to -0.9; LDL-C level differential change, -6.3; 95% CI, -9.7 to -2.8). Conclusions and Relevance:Screening for and attempting to address unmet basic resource needs in primary care was associated with modest improvements in blood pressure and lipid, but not blood glucose, levels.