Validation of the Jefferson health-related social needs screener

Frontiers in Health Services · 2025-09-19 · 1 citations

Introduction: Screening for health-related social needs (HRSN) is a growing national health priority. While multiple HRSN screening tools currently exist, none to our knowledge have been evaluated using robust statistical analyses. The goal of this work is to provide results from a validation study of the Jefferson HRSN screener conducted across inpatient and outpatient settings. Methods: Participants answered the HRSN screener, which includes eight questions across seven HRSN domains (financial, food, housing, utilities, transportation, violence/safety, and social connection) and two follow up questions, as part of standard healthcare encounter procedures. The measure was assessed with item response theory and a two-parameter logistic model. A follow-up analysis using Latent Class Analysis (LCA) was used to assess whether HRSN items and demographic variables could be used to identify people with higher levels of social vulnerability index (SVI). Higher SVI indicates higher levels of needs based on community and neighborhood related factors. Results: The final sample included data from 302,929 adults. Patients were relatively evenly distributed across ages (< 45 years, 32%; 45-64 years, 32%; 65-84 years, 30%; 85+, 4%). Most patients were Non-Hispanic (87%), White (66%), and female (59%). A third of patients were in the medium-high (18%) and high (15%) SVI areas. Positive responses across questions ranged from 0.90%-5.90%. Slopes ranged between 1.67-3.77, and difficulty parameters ranged between 2.20-3.31, indicating that the items can detect a high level of need. LCA results suggested that the eight HRSN items combined with basic demographic variables could help identify people with higher HRSN. Discussion: The Jefferson HRSN screener provides a valid approach for HRSN screening across healthcare settings. The eight screening questions, combined with additional questions to evaluate the patient's desire for help and urgency, can be used to identify patients needing additional resources to address fundamental social needs potentially contributing to health disparities.

Selling the Return on Investment for Digital Health

Telemedicine Reports · 2025-01-01

Background: Advancing digital health requires a realistic conversation that moves past innovation and evaluates digital tools the same as any other device being introduced into the health system. There needs to be a focus on return on investment. Methods: As part of a symposium, we presented hypothetical pitches to an expert panel. The experts include representatives from health systems, payers, and investors. The pitches were related to remote patient monitoring, tele-triage in the emergency department, and comprehensive in-patient telemedicine program including virtual sitting and e-nursing. Results: Although each pitch led to a different discussion, there was uniform agreement that health systems should focus on whether the proposal helps solve an institutional problem; the payment model in which the product can be used (value-based, fee-for-service, or both) needs to be identified; fitting the new product into preexisting workflow (included electronic health system integration) is critical; there needs to be an understanding of whether patients and providers engage with it; and there needs to be a clear return on investment. Discussion: Navigating complex decision-making in health care requires a blend of strategic foresight, practical considerations, and a deep understanding of organizational dynamics. Rather than a specific strategic plan focused on digital or virtual care, there should be a focus on the enterprise strategic plan and how can digital enable that.

Equity in Access for Veterans in the VA Community Care Program

JAMA Health Forum · 2024-06-21 · 2 citations

Racial and Ethnic and Rural Variations in Access to Primary Care for Veterans Following the MISSION Act

Viral suppression among persons in HIV care in the United States during 2009–2013: sampling bias in Medical Monitoring Project surveillance estimates

UNC Libraries · 2024-04-09

Health System Finances Struggle to Regain Pre-Pandemic Footing

NEJM Catalyst · 2023-09-20

SummaryA survey of the NEJM Catalyst Insights Council finds that financial health for the majority of health care organizations has not recovered from pre–Covid-19 pandemic levels, with 10% saying it will never recover.

Effect of Text Message Reminders and Vaccine Reservations on Adherence to a Health System COVID-19 Vaccination Policy

JAMA Network Open · 2022-07-20 · 23 citations

Importance: Many organizations implemented COVID-19 vaccination requirements during the pandemic, but the best way to increase adherence to these policies is unknown. Objective: To evaluate if behavioral nudges delivered through text messages could accelerate adherence to a health system's COVID-19 vaccination policy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was conducted within Ascension health system from October 11 to November 8, 2021. Participants included health system employees in the Midwest or South US who were not adherent with the vaccination policy 1 month before its deadline. Data were analyzed from November 17, 2021, to February 25, 2022. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to control or to receive a text message intervention that stated a vaccine had been reserved for the participant, with a scheduled date for vaccination within a 2-week period. Participants could reschedule to a different date within the period or upload a copy of their vaccination card. Follow-up text message reminders were sent the day before and the day of the appointment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was adherence to the health system's vaccination policy during the 2-week intervention. Secondary outcomes included time to vaccination during a 4-week follow-up period. Results: The sample included 2000 participants (mean [SD] age, 36.4 [12.3] years; 1724 [86.2%] women), with 1000 participants randomized to the control group and 1000 participants randomized to the intervention group. Overall, there were 164 Hispanic participants (8.2%), 46 non-Hispanic Asian participants (2.3%), 202 non-Hispanic Black participants (10.1%), and 1418 non-Hispanic White participants (70.9%). By the end of the 2-week intervention, 363 participants in the text message nudge group (36.3%) and 318 participants in the control group (31.8%) were adherent with the vaccination policy, representing a significant increase of 4.9 (95% CI, 0.8 to 9.1) percentage points in adjusted analyses comparing the nudge group with the control group (P = .02). Among participants who became adherent by the end of the 4-week follow-up period, the text message nudge significantly reduced time to adherence by a mean of 2.4 (95% CI, 2.1 to 4.7) days (P < .001) and a median of 5.0 (95% CI, 2.5 to 7.7) days (P < .001) compared with the control group. At 4 weeks, overall vaccination adherence was no longer different between groups (control: 477 participants [47.7%]; intervention: 472 participants [47.2%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that a behavioral nudge delivered through text messages accelerated adherence to a health system's COVID-19 vaccination policy but did change overall adherence by the time of the policy deadline. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05037201.

Envisioning the Veterans Affairs Health Care System of the Future

JAMA · 2021-03-23 · 2 citations

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal

Analysis of COVID-19 vaccine non-intent by essential vs non-essential worker, demographic, and socioeconomic status among 101,048 US adults

PLoS ONE · 2021-10-28 · 2 citations

As of May 2021, over 286 million coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine doses have been administered across the country. This data is promising, however there are still populations that, despite availability, are declining vaccination. We reviewed vaccine likelihood and receptiveness to recommendation from a doctor or nurse survey responses from 101,048 adults (≥18 years old) presenting to 442 primary care clinics in 8 states and the District of Columbia. Occupation was self-reported and demographic information extracted from the medical record, with 58.3% (n = 58,873) responding they were likely to receive the vaccine, 23.6% (n = 23,845) unlikely, and 18.1% (n = 18,330) uncertain. We found that essential workers were 18% less likely to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. Of those who indicated they were not already “very likely” to receive the vaccine, a recommendation from a nurse or doctor resulted in 16% of respondents becoming more likely to receive the vaccine, although certain occupations were less likely than others to be receptive to recommendations. To our knowledge, this is the first study to look at vaccine intent and receptiveness to recommendations from a doctor or nurse across specific essential worker occupations, and may help inform future early phase, vaccine rollouts and public health measure implementations.

COVID-19 hospital prevalence as a risk factor for mortality: an observational study of a multistate cohort of 62 hospitals

BMJ Quality & Safety · 2021-10-05 · 27 citations

BACKGROUND: The associated mortality with COVID-19 has improved compared with the early pandemic period. The effect of hospital COVID-19 patient prevalence on COVID-19 mortality has not been well studied. METHODS: We analysed data for adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to 62 hospitals within a multistate health system over 12 months. Mortality was evaluated based on patient demographic and clinical risk factors, COVID-19 hospital prevalence and calendar time period of the admission, using a generalised linear mixed model with site of care as the random effect. RESULTS: 38 104 patients with COVID-19 were hospitalised, and during their encounters, the prevalence of COVID-19 averaged 16% of the total hospitalised population. Between March-April 2020 and January-February 2021, COVID-19 mortality declined from 19% to 12% (p<0.001). In the adjusted multivariable analysis, mid and high COVID-19 inpatient prevalence were associated with a 25% and 41% increase in the odds (absolute contribution to probability of death of 2%-3%) of COVID-19 mortality compared with patients with COVID-19 in facilities with low prevalence (<10%), respectively (high prevalence >25%: adjusted OR (AOR) 1.41, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.61; mid-prevalence (10%-25%): AOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.38). Mid and high COVID-19 prevalence accounted for 76% of patient encounters. CONCLUSIONS: Although inpatient mortality for patients with COVID-19 has sharply declined compared with earlier in the pandemic, higher COVID-19 hospital prevalence remained a common risk factor for COVID-19 mortality. Hospital leaders need to reconsider how we provide support to care for patients in times of increased volume and complexity, such as those experienced during COVID-19 surges.

Association of Race With Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) at 92 US Hospitals

JAMA Network Open · 2020-08-18 · 316 citations

IMPORTANCE: While current reports suggest that a disproportionate share of US coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases and deaths are among Black residents, little information is available regarding how race is associated with in-hospital mortality. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of race, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors, on all-cause, in-hospital mortality for patients with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study included 11 210 adult patients (age ≥18 years) hospitalized with confirmed severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) between February 19, 2020, and May 31, 2020, in 92 hospitals in 12 states: Alabama (6 hospitals), Maryland (1 hospital), Florida (5 hospitals), Illinois (8 hospitals), Indiana (14 hospitals), Kansas (4 hospitals), Michigan (13 hospitals), New York (2 hospitals), Oklahoma (6 hospitals), Tennessee (4 hospitals), Texas (11 hospitals), and Wisconsin (18 hospitals). EXPOSURES: Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by positive result on polymerase chain reaction testing of a nasopharyngeal sample. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Death during hospitalization was examined overall and by race. Race was self-reported and categorized as Black, White, and other or missing. Cox proportional hazards regression with mixed effects was used to evaluate associations between all-cause in-hospital mortality and patient characteristics while accounting for the random effects of hospital on the outcome. RESULTS: Of 11 210 patients with confirmed COVID-19 presenting to hospitals, 4180 (37.3%) were Black patients and 5583 (49.8%) were men. The median (interquartile range) age was 61 (46 to 74) years. Compared with White patients, Black patients were younger (median [interquartile range] age, 66 [50 to 80] years vs 61 [46 to 72] years), were more likely to be women (2259 [49.0%] vs 2293 [54.9%]), were more likely to have Medicaid insurance (611 [13.3%] vs 1031 [24.7%]), and had higher median (interquartile range) scores on the Neighborhood Deprivation Index (-0.11 [-0.70 to 0.56] vs 0.82 [0.08 to 1.76]) and the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (21 [0 to 44] vs 22 [0 to 46]). All-cause in-hospital mortality among hospitalized White and Black patients was 23.1% (724 of 3218) and 19.2% (540 of 2812), respectively. After adjustment for age, sex, insurance, comorbidities, neighborhood deprivation, and site of care, there was no statistically significant difference in risk of mortality between Black and White patients (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.09). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although current reports suggest that Black patients represent a disproportionate share of COVID-19 infections and death in the United States, in this study, mortality for those able to access hospital care did not differ between Black and White patients after adjusting for sociodemographic factors and comorbidities.