Screening for Poverty And Related Social determinants to improve Knowledge of and links to resources (SPARK): development and cognitive testing of a tool for primary care ========================================================================================================================================================================== * Itunuoluwa Adekoya * Alannah Delahunty-Pike * Dana Howse * Leanne Kosowan * Zita Seshie * Eunice Abaga * Jane Cooney * Marjeiry Robinson * Dorothy Senior * Lynn Thompson * Alexander Zsager * Kris Aubrey-Bassler * Frederick Burge * Mandi Irwin * Lois Jackson * Alan Katz * Emily Marshall * Nazeem Muhajarine * Cory Neudorf * Andrew D. Pinto ## Abstract **Background** Healthcare organizations are increasingly exploring ways to address the social determinants of health. Accurate data on social determinants is essential to identify opportunities for action to improve health outcomes, to identify patterns of inequity, and to help evaluate the impact of interventions. The objective of this study was to refine a standardized tool for the collection of social determinants data through cognitive testing. **Methods** An initial set of questions on social determinants for use in healthcare settings was developed by a collaboration of hospitals and a local public health organization in Toronto, Canada during 2011-2012. Subsequent research on how patients interpreted the questions, and how they performed in primary care and other settings led to revisions. We administered these questions and conducted in-depth interviews with participants from Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Cognitive interviewing was used, with participants invited to verbalize thoughts and feelings as they read the questions. **Results** Three hundred and seventy-five individuals responded to the study advertisements and 195 ultimately participated in the study. Although all interviews were conducted in English, participants were diverse. For many, the value of this information being collected in typical healthcare settings was unclear, and hence, we included descriptors for each question. In general, the questions were understood, but participants highlighted a number of ways the questions could be changed to be even clearer and more inclusive. **Conclusion** In this work we have refined an initial set of 16 sociodemographic and social needs questions into a simple yet comprehensive 18-question tool. The changes were largely relating to wording, rather than content. These questions require validation against accepted, standardized tools. Further work is required to enable community data governance, and to ensure implementation of the tool and well as use of its data is successful in a range of organizations. ## Background The social determinants of health are the conditions in which we live, work and play that impact individual and population health.1 Our income, social status, education, as well as our physical environment are key social determinants of health.2 While the relationship between social factors and health has been known for millenia3, healthcare services have typically focused on biomedical solutions. Substantial evidence that improved access during the 20th century to healthcare services did not result in reduced health inequities4,5 led to research on root causes. This culminated in the World Health Organization Commission on the Social Determinants of Health.1,6,7 In the Commission’s 2008 Final Report, governments were urged to explore how healthcare systems can consider and address social determinants.8–10 Subsequently, the British Medical Association9, the Canadian Medical Association8, the College of Family Physicians of Canada11, the American College of Physicians10 and other bodies have developed guidelines to support health providers and health organizations to take action on social determinants of health. Accurate data on social determinants that is linked to or part of an individual’s health records is essential to identify opportunities for action to improve health outcomes, to identify patterns of inequity at an organization or community level, and to help evaluate the impact of interventions to reduce inequities.12 While social data is often elicited during clinical visits, this information varies between providers and is scattered in different parts of the health record. In most countries, few health providers or organizations routinely collect data in an organized way on the social determinants of health, beyond sex and age.12,13 The objective of this study was to refine a standardized tool for the collection of robust social determinants data, building on previous work, and to conduct cognitive testing with a large group of diverse individuals through in-depth interviews. ## Materials and methods Research ethics approval was obtained from Unity Health Toronto (#20-241), the University of Manitoba Health Research Ethics Board (#HS24204), the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Research Ethics Board (# 2020.259) and the Saskatchewan Behavioural Research Ethics Board (#2373). ### Background to the SPARK Tool An initial set of questions on social determinants for use in healthcare settings was developed by a collaboration of hospitals and a local public health organization in Toronto, Canada during 2011-2012.1 Questions on language, immigration, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, income, and housing were constructed based on a review of the literature, meetings and consultations. These questions were pilot tested with approximately 1600 individuals across four organizations.12,13 Subsequent research on how patients interpreted the questions, and how they performed in primary care14–17 and other settings18, led to revisions and the inclusion of additional domains including employment, medication access and social isolation. Following pilot testing of these revised questions in five primary care clinics in Ontario, the questions were further refined, resulting in the Screening for Poverty And Related determinants to improve Knowledge of and links to local resources (SPARK) Tool. The SPARK Tool includes 16 questions that cover demographics (language, immigration status, Indigenous identity, race, disability status, sex at birth and gender identity, sexual orientation) and social needs (education, income, medication access, housing status, social isolation, transportation, cost of utilities, and precarious employment) [Appendix 1]. ### Data collection To further refine the questions and complete cognitive testing, we administered the SPARK Tool and conducted in-depth interviews with a diverse set of individuals. Participants were recruited from four provinces in Canada: Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Study advertisements were circulated using social media, through classified advertising websites, using collaborator distribution lists, and with posters placed in waiting rooms in health centers and community spaces. Study advertisements were in English, French and the top three non-Indigenous languages spoken in participating provinces according to the latest national census19: Arabic, Farsi, Punjabi, simplified Chinese, and Tagalog. All interviews were conducted virtually and consent was obtained from participants once they had read and understood the detailed information sheet provided. Interviews were multi-part (completing the SPARK Tool using a think aloud process, additional comparator questions, and open-ended questions), and lasted approximately 1.5 hours. Data on Indigenous identity and race were not collected in Manitoba, based on feedback from the local research ethics board on the potential negative impact on relationships with Indigenous communities. In this paper, we report on the results of cognitive testing. Cognitive interviews were conducted by five members of the study team (ADP, DH, IA, LK, ZS) and two research assistants, who all identified as female. All interviewers had moderate to extensive experience with conducting qualitative interviews but most were new to cognitive interviewing. Cognitive interviewing is a technique used to gain insight into learners’ perceptions in which individuals are invited to verbalize thoughts and feelings as they examine information.20 In this study, surveys were self-administered in the presence of the interviewer. Participants were asked to read the survey question and options provided aloud and *think aloud*, by sharing their immediate thoughts on each question. Participants then selected their answer choice. Minimal unscripted concurrent probing was done by interviewers, except to prompt participants to continue to think aloud throughout the survey. Interviewers recorded the thoughts of participants for each question. Interviewers were trained to look out for: issues related to question wording, issues related to unclear question objective, questions with redundancy or repetitiveness, issues of burden or length of the survey, and questions that lacked options participants frequently want to select.21 ### Data analysis The analysis was conducted by the five members of the study team who had conducted the interviews. Informal analysis of the cognitive interviews was conducted as described by Willis.21 Using the interview notes, we thematically grouped unique topics or concerns that emerged for each question and assessed the frequency of each theme. Results were summarized by each question in a table with columns describing the topic or concern, and the frequency of each theme. Study team members reviewed the themes question-by-question and updated the SPARK Tool to address high frequency topics or concerns. This was done in a series of meetings where study team members discussed each question, including all topics or concerns, as well as potential solutions suggested by the participants to determine how to improve the SPARK Tool. Decisions made for each question were recorded. Topics or concerns were addressed by either modifying question wording, adding, editing or removing answer options, or replacing the question. Once a first draft was created, the Tool was presented to the larger study team, comprised of researchers and patient partners, to provide feedback on the changes. The Tool was also presented to an advisory committee that included subject matter experts on sociodemographic data. Feedback was received from other subject matter experts that were not part of the study team or advisory committee through emails and brief one-on-one meetings. Once all the feedback was incorporated, the SPARK Tool was finalized (Table 2). ## Results Three hundred and seventy-five individuals responded to the study advertisements and 195 ultimately participated in the study: 125 (64.1%) from Ontario, 25 (12.8%) from Saskatchewan, 24 (12.3%) from Manitoba, and 21 (10.8%) from Newfoundland and Labrador. All interviews were conducted in English. Participants were diverse: 148 (76%) identified as non-white, 71 (36%) indicated not being born in Canada, and 38 (19.5%) noted they had difficulty making ends meet at the end of the month (Table 1). In the following, we discuss the topics that emerged from the cognitive interviews and decisions made to improve the SPARK Tool. View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/31/2022.12.30.22283580/T1) Table 1: Demographics of participants ### General perspectives on the SPARK Tool Throughout the SPARK Tool, many participants indicated they were unclear why some questions were asked in the context of receiving healthcare. Based on this feedback, we added descriptions to each question, to explain the purpose of the question and its potential use in care at an individual and organisational level. Many participants also indicated being unfamiliar with terms used, and descriptions also provide definitions. For many questions about social needs, participants expressed confusion concerning the timeframe for and frequency of the social need they were being asked to indicate. For example, with the question, *“Do you have difficulty making ends meet at the end of the month?”*, participants indicated they could make ends meet some months (frequency) or could regularly make ends meet a year ago but not currently (timeframe). To address this feedback, we updated the questions to include a specific timeframe (e.g. ‘in the past 12 months’) and, in some cases, updated answer options to include frequency (e.g., ‘always’ or ‘sometimes’). For questions that had ‘not applicable’ as an option, many participants were confused about the difference between ‘no’ and ‘not applicable’. Therefore, we qualified the ‘not applicable’ option with a short phrase. For example, for the question about paying one’s rent or mortgage on time, we replaced ‘not applicable’ with ‘not applicable, I do not have to pay rent or mortgage’. For certain questions, such as those concerning whether the participant was born in Canada, sex at birth, gender identity, and sexual orientation, several participants noted they may be unwelcome or uncomfortable to complete. To address this concern, the research team included a ‘prefer not to answer’ option to all the questions in the final survey. ### Additional and optional questions Based on feedback from study participants, research staff, patient partners, advisory committee members, and other subject matter experts, additional domains were added to the questions on social needs, including questions on food security, and phone and internet access. Ethnicity and religion were added as optional questions. These optional questions should be used at the discretion of healthcare leaders if feel that they are necessary for use at their respective healthcare organizations. #### Perspectives on the separate SPARK Tool questions A side by side comparison of the SPARK Tool used in this study and the updated and finalized version of the SPARK Tool is shown in Appendix 2. ### Language preference for healthcare and need for translation The wording of the question concerning language needs, *“If it could be arranged, would translation into another language be helpful at your next appointment?”*, was unclear for only seven (3.6%) participants. Five (2.6%) participants were unsure if the question was referring to a healthcare appointment or any appointments. To clarify, we added ‘healthcare’ to the updated question. In addition, to reduce data entry error, we added a list of optional drop-down answer choices for language preferred. The options are based on the top 20 languages and top five Indigenous languages spoken most often at home in Canada based on the 2016 Statistics Canada Census data.19 ### Born in Canada Among 71 (36%) participants that were not born in Canada, three participants could not recall what year they arrived to Canada. Given that this question is aimed at determining newcomer status, we revised the answer options to include ‘less than 5 years’, ‘5 to 9 years’ and ‘10 years or more’ instead of an open-text field. This reduces data entry error and addresses recall issues. It also fits with Statistics Canada’s definition of a recent immigrant or newcomer, which refers to a person who obtained a landed immigrant or permanent resident status up to five years prior to a given census year.22 A limitation of this question is that it does not account for people who arrived more than once in Canada. Three (1.5%) participants expressed confusion, indicating that they moved to Canada more than once. ### Indigenous identity In this paper, we have not reported cognitive interview results from study participants on this question as we believe that the reporting of these results should be governed and led by Indigenous communities. We have included in the descriptor that this data must be collected with engagement with local First Nations, Métis, and Inuit governance bodies in accordance with the First Nations OCAP, Métis OCAS, and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit data governance and sovereignty principles.23–26 ### Race The race question includes a preamble intended to explain why race is being asked about at a healthcare appointment. Twelve (6.1%) participants indicated that the preamble was too technical or overwhelming or requested simpler language. Eight (4.1%) participants noted that ‘not based in science’ is technically incorrect or unnecessary (e.g., sociology is considered a science, skin color differences are studied in certain scientific disciplines i.e., melanin), and some noted that ‘not based in biology’ is a more appropriate phrase. In addition to suggested edits to the preamble, eighteen (9.2%) participants requested examples of countries or regions for each race category in the answer options, which we have now included. Fifteen participants wanted the ‘White’ and ‘Black’ option to be separated into different “types” of White or Black people. For example, participants suggested splitting the ‘Black’ option into African, Afro-Caribbean, African American etc. However, based on the definition of race and ethnicity, which we describe in the newly added descriptors, “types” of white or black people would correspond with ethnicity. The revised SPARK Tool provides an optional ethnicity question to address this topic. Eight (4.1%) participants indicated preference for an ethnicity question instead of a race question. While the participant feedback on this question was valuable and informed the creation of and changes to other questions, we did not edit this question in light of the cognitive interview. Rather, in keeping with national standards, we opted to align our final question including the preamble and answer options, with the standards for collecting race-based data released by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) in March 2022.27 ### Disability status For 38 (19.5%) participants, the disability question, *“In general, do you experience any of the following due to a physical, mental, or emotional condition?”*, and its answer options were seen as too broad and subject to interpretation. For example, ‘difficulty communicating’ may refer to a speech impairment or language barriers. Some participants (34, 17.4%) were unsure if a difficulty they experienced should be included. More specifically, there were 12 participants (6.1%) who were unsure if they should say they have a difficulty if it could be corrected with assistance (e.g., glasses for ‘difficulty seeing’). Based on the feedback we received, the study team revised the question to include ‘due to a severe and persistent physical, mental or emotional condition’. Additionally, the study team revised the answer options based on participant feedback. For example, it was unclear what ‘self-care’ meant to 19 (9.7%) participants, so we changed that option to ‘personal hygiene’. Including examples in the answer options and adding a descriptor helped to clarify that this question is intended to identify conditions that are severe and disabling. Eleven (5.6%) participants felt the options provided were limited and did not account for difficulties associated with having a mental health condition. The addition of answer options to include ‘difficulty with activities for daily living’ captures difficulties mentioned in the cognitive interviews that were not present in the original answer option. ### Sex at birth For the question, *“What was your sex assigned at birth?”*, six (3.1%) participants noted that ‘intersex’ status is not necessarily always ‘assigned’ at birth, therefore ‘assigned’ was removed from the question. ### Gender identity For the question, *“What is your current gender identity?”*, based on feedback from subject matter experts, the term ‘current’ was removed from the question as it was deemed redundant or unnecessary for answering the question. Nine (4.6%) participants felt the options provided for gender identity were limited. Based on feedback from the participants as well as from subject matter experts, additional options, including ‘transgender woman’ and ‘transgender man’ were included in the question. For five (2.6%) participants, the difference between ‘sex at birth’ and ‘gender identity’ was unclear, and hence, the descriptor includes an explanation. ### Sexual orientation Two additional options, ‘demisexual’ and ‘asexual’, were added to the sexual orientation question (‘which best describes your sexual orientation?’) as 17 (8.7%) participants felt that the original options were too limited, and a few participants specifically mentioned those options should be included. This change was supported by the study team’s review of the literature and consultations with subject matter experts. We removed the definition in the ‘heterosexual’ option (‘male/female relationships or two different binary genders’) based on feedback from 16 (8.2%) participants who felt it was unnecessary, some of whom found it offensive. ‘Queer’ and ‘pansexual’ were separated into two different options as 9 (4.6%) participants highlighted that these terms are not synonymous. Some participants (2, 1.0%) indicated that they felt that gender could be represented by more than one answer option (e.g., queer and bisexual), therefore individuals can now select multiple options. ### Education For the education question, *“What is the highest level of education you have completed?”*, three (1.5%) participants and a patient partner on our study team felt that the phrase ‘*highest* level of education’ in the question was un-inclusive, hierarchical, elitist, or offensive, so the term ‘highest’ has been removed. Twenty-one (10.8%) participants mentioned that the education answer options were too limited and, in some cases, confusing. Therefore, several options were added or revised including replacing ‘trades certificate/diploma’ and ‘college/university degree’ with ‘college, CEGEP or other non-university certificate or diploma’, ‘completed registered apprenticeship or other trades certificate or diploma’ and ‘undergraduate degree’. Examples were added to clarify the term ‘postgraduate’ as 14 (7.2%) participants, many of which spoke English as a Second Language (ESL) or completed their education outside of Canada, were unfamiliar with the term. We clarified or removed the word ‘some’ in the options and replaced with ‘ongoing’ in most cases. One limitation to the updated question is that participants are not able to select more than one option for their level of education as requested by 9 (4.6%) participants. For example, in instances where a participant has attended both college and university and considers both education levels to be equivalent, they are forced to pick just one. Multiple choice selection was not added to this question as its purpose is to ascertain literacy level indicated by education level. ### Finances We changed the question from *“Do you have difficulty making ends meet at the end of the month?”* to *“Do you currently have difficulty paying for basic needs?”* as 26 (13.3%) participants, many of whom were ESL speakers, found the term ‘making ends meet’ difficult to understand. For 7 (3.6%) participants, it was unclear how to define a basic or essential need, so we included clarification in the descriptor. One limitation to the updated question is that it does not capture people who are able to pay for basic needs like food, shelter, clothing, but still have serious financial difficulties. This concern was identified by 7 (3.6%) participants. This brief question may not accurately capture every aspect of a person’s financial situation. However, it has been validated as a good predictor of poverty and identifying individuals living below the “poverty line” or low-income cut-off (LICO).28 ### Access to prescription medication insurance Three (1.5%) participants felt that the question about medication access (‘in the last 12 months, did you avoid filling a prescription or do anything to make a prescription last longer because of the cost?’) did not consider medical devices or supplies (e.g., for diabetes management), as well as over-the-counter (OTC) medications, which may not be prescribed. To account for patients’ diverse medical needs, ‘prescription’ was replaced with ‘medication or medical supplies’. ### Housing We changed the question from *“What is your current housing?”* to *“What is your current housing situation?”* as the previous wording of the question was cumbersome according to 6 (3.1%) participants. There were no adequate options for 35 (17.9%) participants who lived with family or friends by choice (and not because of a lack of alternatives). To address this, we replaced the ‘own home’ and ‘rent’ options with ‘a place you or your family owns’ and ‘a place you or your family rents’. Some participants found the terms ‘couch surfing’ (12 participants) and ‘on the street’ (9 participants) stigmatizing, inappropriate or offensive. We replaced ‘couch surfing’ with ‘staying in someone else’s place because you have no alternative’ and ‘On the street’ with ‘Experiencing homelessness’. Nineteen (9.7%) participants felt that the options were limited and did not capture other living situations such as transitional housing or a nomadic lifestyle. We added additional options including supportive housing or group home, long-term care facility and correctional facility. We added “social housing, subsidized housing or rent-geared-to-income’ as an option to this question and therefore removed the follow-up question “Is your current housing social housing, subsidized housing or rent-geared-to-income?” from the SPARK Tool. Seven (3.6%) participants indicated wanting to be asked about their living arrangements, specifically about who they live with. For example, if they rent, to specify that they live with roommates. One participant mentioned that the ‘rent’ option is a wide category that could include living with multiple roommates or alone in a “big fancy apartment”. We added a follow-up question asking “who do you live with? select all that apply”. For 18 (9.2%) participants, the options were inadequate and did not capture people who did not have to pay rent or people who were only able to make partial payment of the rent. ‘Not applicable, I do not have to pay rent or mortgage’ was added to address the first problem. The updated question does not yet capture participants who were only able to make partial rent payment, which is a limitation of the question. ### Transportation In the transportation question used in this study, *“In the past 12 months, did you avoid attending an important appointment because of the cost of transportation?”*, it was unclear to four (2.0%) participants what type of appointment the question was referring to. This has been clarified in the updated question. The updated question was adapted from the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) Social Needs Screening Tool and the PREPARE Toolkit.29,30 ### Utilities Eleven (5.6%) people were unsure what constituted a utility bill, therefore, in the revised question and the created descriptor, we provided examples of utilities for clarity. The descriptor explains ‘the specific utilities you pay for may depend on where you live’, indicating that electric, gas/oil and water bills are only examples of utility bills. There were no adequate options for 8 (4.1%) participants whose utilities are included in the rent. If these participants experienced difficulty paying a bill it would be captured in part three of housing question which asks the participant, “in the past 12 months, was there a time when you were not able to pay the mortgage or rent on time?” Further, we have expanded the ‘not applicable’ answer option to state “not applicable, I did not have to pay utility bills in the past 12 months or utilities already included in rent”. ### Social supports Social support is captured by two questions, both of which were moved to follow the utilities question (initially placed after housing) as some participants found the transition from housing to social supports abrupt. For the first question, ‘do you feel you have family or close friends who you can open up to?’, 10 (5.1%) participants, many of whom were ESL speakers, the term ‘open up to’ was difficult to understand. We therefore revised the question adding ‘confide in’ for clarity (i.e., ‘do you feel you have people who you can open up to or confide in’). Six (3.1%) participants felt unable to provide a *yes* or *no* response to social support questions, explaining that they may not be able to open up all the time or may be able to open up about some things but not others. To address this we added ‘yes, always or sometimes’ to the ‘yes’ option. In addition, ‘family or close friends’ was replaced with ‘people’ in the question as three participants said they may be able to open up to people not in those categories, e.g., pastor, teacher, etc. For the follow-up question, ‘are you able to rely on them if you need help (e.g., transportation, emotional or financial assistance)?’, 32 (16.4%) participants, felt the categories or examples provided in the question were too specific. For example, participants may be able to rely on the people they referred to in the first question emotionally but not financially. We removed the examples and left the question open to any kind of help. Some of these categories, e.g., transportation, are addressed in other questions. ### Employment The SPARK Tool administered in this study included three questions aimed at identifying individuals experiencing precarious employment. However, 34 (17.4%) participants felt unable to answer the employment questions which were not inclusive of all employment situations, including full-time, permanent, self-employed, did not capture people in between jobs or working multiple jobs, and failed to capture participants that were retired. To address this, we added two questions: ‘are you currently employed?’ and ‘are you currently looking for work?’ before asking the follow up questions about precarious employment. These revisions will capture individuals unemployed and looking for employment and therefore may help connect people to employment resources. Among the precarious employment questions, the first of which asked ‘are you employed in a casual, short-term, or temporary position?’, 12 (6.1%) participants were not familiar with the terms ‘casual’ and ‘short-term’. The umbrella terms for precarious work ‘temporary’ or ‘part-time’ were used instead. Examples of types of temporary or part-time employment were also included. Based on feedback from 4 (2.0%) participants who had multiple jobs, this question was revised to include ‘main job’ in the question to clarify that this is referring to primary source of employment. For the second precarious employment question, ‘do you feel fearful that you could be fired if you raise employment concerns?’, the phrase ‘raise employment concerns’ was confusing for 4 (2.0%) participants. To clarify this, we added examples of types of employment concerns. The question has also been modified to simplify the language. Based on feedback from research staff, ‘fired’ was replaced with ‘negatively affected’ in the question to account for people who may not be fired but endure negative consequences if or when they raise concerns. For the question about income instability, ‘does your pay vary a lot from month to month?’, we replaced ‘vary’ with ‘change’ for 12 (6.1%) participants who wanted the question reworded. Several of these participants also mentioned that their pay may change a lot due to other factors unrelated to precarious employment such as self-employment or shift work (e.g., nurses). This is a limitation that the updates have not addressed. ## Discussion In this study, we conducted in-depth interviews with 195 diverse individuals from across four Canadian provinces, and through cognitive interviewing, evaluated a standard tool for collecting data on social determinants within primary care settings. For many participants, the value of this information being collected in typical healthcare settings was unclear, and hence, we included descriptors for each question. In general, the questions were understood, but participants highlighted a number of ways the questions could be changed to be even clearer and more inclusive. The findings from this study led to numerous ways to refine the questions. Our findings are similar to other research on collecting sociodemographic data and screening for social needs in healthcare settings. Several previous studies have found that it is essential to clarify the reason for collecting data on social determinants at the outset.31–33 Our findings regarding participants’ interpretation of the question on race fits our past research on an earlier version of this question16, and confirms that the majority of individuals can identify an option that fits their self-identified race. Regarding the question on disabilities, our revised question is an improvement on an older version that contained a mixture of diagnoses and confusing terms17, and fits with work by Morris et al, on a patient-centred disability status question.34 Our findings on the questions related to gender identity and sexual orientation fit previous work15, and suggest that new terms will continue to emerge that will need to be added as answer options to these questions. A limitation of our study is that all interviews were conducted in English, despite advertising in numerous languages and offering translation services if required. Future research is needed to determine whether translations of these questions perform well or elicit new or different concerns from patients. ## Conclusions In this work we have refined a set of 16 sociodemographic and social needs questions into a simple yet comprehensive and inclusive, 18-question tool that can be used in healthcare organizations to collect data on sociodemographics and social needs. The changes that were required were largely relating to wording, rather than content and demonstrated that consensus can be achieved. These questions require validation against accepted, standardized tools, and a future validation study is planned. Further work is required to enable community data governance35, and to ensure implementation of the tool and well as use of its data is successful in a range of organizations. ## Supporting information Appendix 1 [[supplements/283580_file04.docx]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript. ## Updated SPARK Tool View this table: [Table2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/31/2022.12.30.22283580/T2) ## Acknowledgments This project was funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR). We would like to acknowledge Nada Dali and Ellah San Antonio, who helped with data collection in this study. We would also like to acknowledge Rose Wang for her contribution to the conceptualization of the study and management of the SPARK study team and advisory group. * Received December 30, 2022. * Revision received December 30, 2022. * Accepted December 31, 2022. * © 2022, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission. ## References 1. 1.World Health Organization. Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity through Action on the Social Determinants of Health.; 2008. doi:10.1080/17441692.2010.514617 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/17441692.2010.514617&link_type=DOI) 2. 2.Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC). What determines health? Published 2011. Accessed April 10, 2017. [http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/determinants/index-eng.php](http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ph-sp/determinants/index-eng.php) 3. 3.Krieger N. Theories for social epidemiology in the 21st century: an ecosocial perspective. Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30(4):668–677. doi:10.1093/ije/30.4.668 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/ije/30.4.668&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11511581&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F31%2F2022.12.30.22283580.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000170943300005&link_type=ISI) 4. 4.Wilkinson R, Marmot M. Social Determinants of Health: the Solid Facts. World Heal Organ. 2003;2(2):1–33. doi:10.1016/j.jana.2012.03.001 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jana.2012.03.001&link_type=DOI) 5. 5.Marmot M, Bell R. Fair society, healthy lives. Public Health. 2012;126(SUPPL.1):S4. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2012.05.014 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.puhe.2012.05.014&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22784581&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F31%2F2022.12.30.22283580.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000308745700003&link_type=ISI) 6. 6.Adler N, Ostrove J. Socioeconomic status and health□: what we know and what we don’t. PubMed Commons. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999;896:3–15. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08101.x [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08101.x&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10681884&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F31%2F2022.12.30.22283580.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000085238100002&link_type=ISI) 7. 7.Adler NE, Stewart J. Health disparities across the lifespan: Meaning, methods, and mechanisms. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010;1186:5–23. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05337.x [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05337.x&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20201865&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F31%2F2022.12.30.22283580.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000277908000002&link_type=ISI) 8. 8.Physicians and Health Equity: Opportunities in Practice.; 2013. 9. 9.Social Determinants of Health - What Doctors Can Do.; 2011. 10. 10.Daniel H, Bornstein S, Kane G. Addressing social determinants to improve patient care and promote health equity: An American College of Physicians position paper. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(8):577–593. doi:10.2105/AJPH [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/M17-2441&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F31%2F2022.12.30.22283580.atom) 11. 11.Best Advice - Social Determinants of Health.; 2015. 12. 12.Pinto AD, Glattstein-Young G, Mohamed A, Bloch G, Leung FH, Glazier RH. Building a Foundation to Reduce Health Inequities: Routine Collection of Sociodemographic Data in Primary Care. J Am Board Fam Med. 2016;29(3):348–355. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2016.03.150280 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiamFiZnAiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiMjkvMy8zNDgiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8xMi8zMS8yMDIyLjEyLjMwLjIyMjgzNTgwLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 13. 13.Toronto Public Health, St. Michael’s, CAMH, Mount Sinai Hospital. We Ask Because We Care: The Tri-Hospital + TPH Health Equity Data Collection Research Project Report.; 2013. 14. 14.Pinto AD, Shenfeld E, Aratangy T, et al. Routinely asking patients about income in primary care: a mixed-methods study. Br J Gen Pract Open. Published online 2021. 15. 15.Pinto AD, Aratangy T, Abramovich A, et al. Routine collection of sexual orientation and gender identity data: a mixed-methods study. Can Med Assoc J. 2019;191(3):E63–E68. doi:10.1503/cmaj.180839 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY21haiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIxOTEvMy9FNjMiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8xMi8zMS8yMDIyLjEyLjMwLjIyMjgzNTgwLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 16. 16.Kiran T, Sandhu P, Aratangy T, Devotta K, Lofters A, Pinto AD. Patient perspectives on routinely being asked about their race and ethnicity: qualitative study in primary care. Can Fam Physician. 2019;65:e363–e369. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiY2ZwIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjY1LzgvZTM2MyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzEyLzMxLzIwMjIuMTIuMzAuMjIyODM1ODAuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 17. 17.Pinto AD, Shenfeld E, Lattanzio R, et al. Routine identification of patients with disabilities in primary care: a mixed-methods study. Disabil Health J. 2019;in press. 18. 18.Williams-Roberts H, Neudorf C, Abonyi S, Cushon J, Muhajarine N. Facilitators and barriers of sociodemographic data collection in Canadian health care settings: A multisite case study evaluation. Int J Equity Health. 2018;17(1):1–10. doi:10.1186/s12939-018-0903-0 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12939-018-0814-0&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29301537&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F31%2F2022.12.30.22283580.atom) 19. 19.Statistics Canada. 2016 Census of Population. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-400-X2016345. Published 2016. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/dt-td/Rp-eng.cfm?TABID=2&Lang=E&APATH=3&DETAIL=0&DIM=0&FL=A&FREE=0&GC=0&GID=1235625&GK=0&GRP=1&PID=110212&PRID=10&PTYPE=109445&S=0&SHOWALL=0&SUB=0&Temporal=2016&THEME=118&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=&D1=0 20. 20.Shafer K, Lohse B. How to conduct a cognitive interview: A nutrition education example. US Dep Agric Natl Inst Food Agric. Published online 2005. 21. 21.Willis GB. Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. sage publications; 2004. 22. 22.Statistics Canada. 2016 Census of Population: Immigration and ethnocultural diversity. Statistics Canada. Published 2017. Accessed November 17, 2022. [https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/ref/98-501/98-501-x2016008-eng.cfm](https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/ref/98-501/98-501-x2016008-eng.cfm) 23. 23.Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). A Path Forward: Toward Respectful Governance of First Nations, Inuit and Métis Data Housed at CIHI.; 2020. 24. 24.The First Nations Information Governance Centre. The First Nations Principles of OCAP.; 2019. 25. 25.University of Manitoba Faculty of Health Sciences. Framework for Research Engagement with First Nation, Metis and Inuit Peoples.; 2019. 26. 26.Tagalik S. Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit: The Role of Indigenous Knowledge in Supporting Wellness in Inuit Communities in Nunavut.; 2009. 27. 27.Canadian Institute of Health Information. Guidance on the Use of Standards for Race-Based and Indigenous Identity Data Collection and Health Reporting in Canada.; 2022. 28. 28.Brcic V, Eberdt C, Kaczorowski J. Development of a tool to identify poverty in a family practice setting: a pilot study. Int J Family Med. 2011;2011:1–7. doi:10.1155/2011/812182 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1155/2011/812182&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F31%2F2022.12.30.22283580.atom) 29. 29.American Academy of Family Physicians. Social Needs Screening Tool. Published 2016. Accessed June 21, 2022. [https://www.aafp.org/dam/AAFP/documents/patient\_care/everyone\_project/patient-short-print.pdf](https://www.aafp.org/dam/AAFP/documents/patient_care/everyone_project/patient-short-print.pdf) 30. 30.National Association of Community Health Centers. PRAPARE Implementation and Action Toolkit.; 2016. 31. 31.Cook CAL, Freedman JA, Freedman LD, Arick RK, Miller ME. Screening for social and environmental problems in a VA primary care setting. Heal Soc Work. 1996;21(1):41–47. doi:10.1093/hsw/21.1.41 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/hsw/21.1.41&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=8626157&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F12%2F31%2F2022.12.30.22283580.atom) 32. 32.Tong ST, Liaw WR, Kashiri PL, et al. Clinician experiences with screening for social needs in primary care. J Am Board Fam Med. 2018;31(3):351–363. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2018.03.170419 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiamFiZnAiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiMzEvMy8zNTEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMi8xMi8zMS8yMDIyLjEyLjMwLjIyMjgzNTgwLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 33. 33.Manchanda R, Gottlieb L. Upstream Risks Screening Tool & Guide. Published online 2015:–4. [https://www.aamc.org/download/442878/data/chahandout1.pdf](https://www.aamc.org/download/442878/data/chahandout1.pdf) 34. 34.Morris MA, Lagu T, Maragh-Bass A, Liesinger J, Griffin JM. Development of Patient-Centered Disability Status Questions to Address Equity in Care. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2017;43(12):642–650. doi:10.1016/j.jcjq.2017.06.011 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jcjq.2017.06.011&link_type=DOI) 35. 35.Group BHEW. Engagement, Governance, Access, and Protection (EGAP): A Data Governance Framework for Health Data Collected from Black Communities.; 2021.