• MarchisEmilia H DeEHFrom the Department of Family & Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco (EHDM, LMG); School of Public Health, San Diego State University (BA); California Policy Lab, University of California, Berkeley (EMB); Joint M, Benjamin A Aceves, Erika M Brown, Vishalli Loomba, Melanie F Molina, and Laura M Gottlieb.
• From the Department of Family & Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco (EHDM, LMG); School of Public Health, San Diego State University (BA); California Policy Lab, University of California, Berkeley (EMB); Joint Medical Program, University of California, Berkeley (VL); Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, San Francisco (MFM).
• J Am Board Fam Med. 2023 Aug 9; 36 (4): 626649626-649.

PurposeThough a growing crop of health care reforms aims to encourage health care-based social screening, no literature has synthesized existing social screening implementation research to inform screening practice and policymaking.MethodsSystematic scoping review of peer-reviewed literature on social screening implementation published 1/1/2011-2/17/2022. We applied a 2-concept search (health care-based screening; social risk factors) to PubMed and Embase. Studies had to explore the implementation of health care-based multi-domain social screening and describe 1+ outcome related to the reach, adoption, implementation, and/or maintenance of screening. Two reviewers extracted data related to key study elements, including sample, setting, and implementation outcomes.ResultsForty-two articles met inclusion criteria. Reach (n = 7): We found differences in screening rates by patient race/ethnicity; findings varied across studies. Patients who preferred Spanish had lower screening rates than English-preferring patients. Adoption (n = 13): Workforce education and dedicated quality improvement projects increased screening adoption. Implementation (n = 32): Time was the most cited barrier to screening; administration time differed by tool/workforce/modality. Use of standardized screening tools/workflows improved screening integration. Use of community health workers and/or technology improved risk disclosure and facilitated screening in resource-limited settings. Maintenance (n = 1): Only 1 study reported on maintenance; results showed a drop in screening over 21 months.ConclusionsCritical evidence gaps in social screening implementation persist. These include gaps in knowledge about effective strategies for integrating social screening into clinical workflows and ways to maximize screening equity. Future research should leverage the rapidly increasing number of screening initiatives to elevate and scale best practices.© Copyright by the American Board of Family Medicine.

9 keywords...

hide…