Stakeholder perspectives on social screening in US healthcare settings

Abstract

Abstract Background Evidence on the health impacts of social conditions has led US healthcare systems to consider identifying and addressing social adversity—e.g. food, housing, and transportation insecurity—in care delivery settings. Social screening is one strategy being used to gather patient information about social circumstances at the point of care. While several recent studies describe the rapid proliferation of social screening activities, little work has explored either why or how to implement social screening in clinical settings. Our study objectives were to assess diverse healthcare stakeholder perspectives on both the rationale for social screening and evidence needed to inform practice and policy-relevant implementation decisions. Methods We convened five focus groups with US experts representing different stakeholder groups: patient advocates, community-based organizations, healthcare professionals, payers, and policymakers. In total, 39 experts participated in approximately 90-minute long focus groups conducted between January-March 2021. A inductive thematic analysis approach was used to analyze discussions. Results Three themes emerged from focus groups, each reflecting the tension between the national enthusiasm for screening and existing evidence on the effectiveness and implementation of screening in clinical settings: (1) ambiguity about the rationale for social screening; (2) concerns about the relavence of screening tools and approaches, particularly for historically marginalized populations; (3) lack of clarity around the resources needed for implementation and scaling. Conclusion While participants across groups described potential benefits of social screening, they also highlighted knowledge gaps that interfered with realizing these benefits. Efforts to minimize and ideally resolve these knowledge gaps will advance future social screening practice and policy.

Keywords

• Social care
• Screening
• Health services research
• Qualitative research
• Health equity