RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 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
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.12.30.22283580
DO 10.1101/2022.12.30.22283580
A1 Adekoya, Itunuoluwa
A1 Delahunty-Pike, Alannah
A1 Howse, Dana
A1 Kosowan, Leanne
A1 Seshie, Zita
A1 Abaga, Eunice
A1 Cooney, Jane
A1 Robinson, Marjeiry
A1 Senior, Dorothy
A1 Thompson, Lynn
A1 Zsager, Alexander
A1 Aubrey-Bassler, Kris
A1 Burge, Frederick
A1 Irwin, Mandi
A1 Jackson, Lois
A1 Katz, Alan
A1 Marshall, Emily
A1 Muhajarine, Nazeem
A1 Neudorf, Cory
A1 Pinto, Andrew D.
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/31/2022.12.30.22283580.abstract
AB 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.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Unity Health Toronto Research Ethics Board, the University of Manitoba Health Research Ethics Board, the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Research Ethics Board, and the Saskatchewan Behavioural Research Ethics Board gave approval for this work.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.