The prevalence of social care in US health care settings depends on how and whom you ask
The prevalence of social care in US health care settings depends on how and whom you ask
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12913-020-05338-8
复制
发表时间：
2020-05-29
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Gottlieb, Laura
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cartier, Yuri;Gottlieb, Laura
背景尽管将社会风险筛查和相关干预措施整合到美国医疗保健环境中的热情前所未有，但我们对这些活动发生的程度知之甚少。我们回顾了多项国家调查的结果，这些调查报告了社会护理活动的流行情况。方法：我们采用滚雪球抽样征求29名专家提供信息者的意见，他们被要求分享有关调查工具的任何知识，其中包括在医疗机构进行的社会护理相关活动的流行率问题。随后，我们对推荐的调查进行了网络搜索，以确定那些在2007年1月1日至2019年5月31日期间进行的全国样本。最后，我们分析和比较了调查结果。结果我们审查了23个总的调查事件（19个单独的调查和4个已重新管理），其中包括跨卫生保健学科和设置的社会保健活动的程度的问题。样本包括广泛的医疗保健利益相关者（包括付款人，医疗保健管理人员，提供者和患者）。样本量在受访者的类型范围内：95-120名受访者在支付者的调查; 44-757在卫生保健提供领导者的调查; 484-2333在临床医生的调查;和500-7002在患者的调查。在8个国家，调查报告没有包括答复率;另外4份报告所述答复率低于25%。在23项调查中，有15项纳入了关于社会风险筛查普及率的问题; 17项纳入了关于社会护理干预活动的问题。关于筛查和干预措施的普遍性的答复差异很大：15%至100%的答复者报告其组织至少对一种社会风险进行筛查; 18%至100%的答复者报告提供社会护理干预措施。在接受调查的患者中，有3%至22%的人报告说，他们接受了筛查或得到了社会风险方面的帮助。在不同年份进行的四次调查中，我们发现调查管理机构之间的结果没有显着差异。结论研究结果表明，谨慎是必要的解释调查结果从任何单一的调查，因为现有的调查报告广泛的社会风险筛查和干预措施的患病率估计。
Background Despite unprecedented enthusiasm for integrating social risk screening and related interventions into US health care settings, we know relatively little about the extent to which these activities occur. We reviewed results from multiple national surveys that reported on the prevalence of social care activities. Methods We used snowball sampling to solicit input from 29 expert informants who were asked to share any knowledge about survey instruments that included questions on the prevalence of social care-related activities conducted in health care settings. We subsequently ran web searches on recommended surveys to identify those fielded with a national sample and conducted between Jan 1, 2007 and May 31, 2019. Finally, we analyzed and compared results across surveys. Results We reviewed 23 total survey events (19 individual surveys and 4 that had been re-administered) that included questions on the extent of social care activities across health care disciplines and settings. Samples included a wide range of health care stakeholders (including payers, health care executives, providers, and patients.) Sample sizes ranged across the types of respondents: 95-120 respondents in surveys of payers; 44-757 in surveys of health care delivery leaders; 484-2333 in surveys of clinicians; and 500-7002 in surveys of patients. In eight cases, survey reports did not include response rates; another four reports described response rates under 25%. Fifteen of the 23 surveys incorporated questions on the prevalence of social risk screening; 17 included questions on social care intervention activities. Responses about the prevalence of both screening and interventions varied widely: between 15 and 100% of respondents reported their organization conducts screening for at least one social risk; 18-100% of respondents reported providing social care interventions. Between 3 and 22% of surveyed patients reported being screened or assisted with a social risk. In the four surveys that were administered in different years, we found no significant differences in results between survey administrations. Conclusions Findings suggest that caution is warranted in interpreting survey findings from any single survey since existing surveys report a wide range of prevalence estimates for social risk screening and interventions.