Heliyon (Aug 2024)
Retrospective review of food insecurity screening in an outpatient stroke clinic using electronic and paper-based surveys
Abstract
Objective: To assess the feasibility of administrating an electronic and paper-based food insecurity screener among patients presenting to a stroke clinic during the study period. We aimed to ensure a consecutive sample for our retrospective analysis and evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of food insecurity in this population. Materials and methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients with an initial telemedicine or in-person appointment to a stroke outpatient clinic between February 1 and July 31, 2021. Prior to their initial visit, patients were sent an electronic questionnaire to screen for food insecurity using the 2-item Hunger Vital Sign™ and to collect socio-demographic characteristics. Patients who were evaluated in-person were given a paper questionnaire if the electronic version was not completed upon clinic appointment. We collected data on patient demographics, screener completion rates, and the prevalence of food insecurity. The feasibility was evaluated by comparing the amount of missing data between electronic and paper-based screeners. Results: Among 406 adult stroke survivors, 365 (89.9 %) completed the food insecurity screener, with 234 (64.1 %) completing it electronically and 131 (35.9 %) by paper. Overall, 14.3 % of the stroke patients experienced food insecurity. A higher prevalence of food insecurity was observed among patients who completed paper-based compared to electronic questionnaires (21.4 % vs 10.2 %, p = 0.004). Hispanic patients were more likely to complete paper-based questionnaires (32.1 %) compared to electronic questionnaires (18.0 %, p = 0.011). Patients with a 12th grade education or less were more likely to complete paper-based (49.5 %) vs. electronic questionnaires (36.4 %, p = 0.029). Feasibility was evaluated by comparing the amount of missing data between the screener delivery modalities. A higher percentage of socio-demographic characteristics was missing in the paper-based questionnaires compared to electronic questionnaires (105.3 % vs. 14.11 %). Conclusions: Sample characteristics differ based on the mode of questionnaire delivery, suggesting that different screening modalities may be necessary to identify patients at the highest risk for food insecurity. Our study provides detailed insights into the feasibility of using electronic and paper-based screeners in a clinical setting, highlighting the importance of considering delivery methods in food insecurity assessments. It is important to note that the Spanish language electronic survey was only available during the last two months of the study, which may affect the findings regarding Hispanic patients' preference for paper surveys.
