Geographic location is an important factor in understanding disparities in access to health-care and social services. The objective of this cross-sectional study is to evaluate disparities in the geographic distribution of income-related social service agencies relative to populations in need within Boston. Agency locations were obtained from a comprehensive database of social services in Boston. Geographic information systems mapped the spatial relationship of the agencies to the population using point density estimation and was compared to census population data. A multivariate logistic regression was conducted to evaluate factors associated with categories of income-related agency density. Median agency density within census block groups ranged from 0 to 8 agencies per square mile per 100 population below the federal poverty level (FPL). Thirty percent (n = 31,810) of persons living below the FPL have no access to income-related social services within 0.5 miles, and 77 % of persons living below FPL (n = 83,022) have access to 2 or fewer agencies. 27.0 % of Blacks, 30.1 % of Hispanics, and 41.0 % of non-Hispanic Whites with incomes below FPL have zero access. In conclusion, some neighborhoods in Boston with a high concentration of low-income populations have limited access to income-related social service agencies.

Despite substantial evidence documenting the social patterning of disease, relatively little information is available on how the health care system can best intervene on social determinants to impact individual and population health. Announced in January 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation's (CMMI) Accountable Health Communities (AHC) initiative provides an important opportunity to improve the evidence base around integrated social and medical care delivery. To maximize learning from this large-scale demonstration, comprehensive evaluation efforts should focus on effectiveness and implementation research by supporting local, regional, and national studies across a range of outcomes. Findings from this demonstration could transform how, when, and which patients' health-related social needs are addressed within the health care delivery system. Such findings would strongly complement other initiatives to address social factors outside of health care.

Childhood adversity and its structural causes drive lifelong and intergenerational inequities in health and well-being. Health care systems increasingly understand the influence of childhood adversity on health outcomes but cannot treat these deep and complex issues alone. Cross-sector partnerships, which integrate health care, food support, legal, housing, and financial services among others, are becoming increasingly recognized as effective approaches address health inequities. What principles should guide the design of cross-sector partnerships that address childhood adversity and promote Life Course Health Development (LCHD)? The complex effects of childhood adversity on health development are explained by LCHD concepts, which serve as the foundation for a cross-sector partnership that optimizes lifelong health. We review the evolution of cross-sector partnerships in health care to inform the development of an LCHD-informed partnership framework geared to address childhood adversity and LCHD. This framework outlines guiding principles to direct partnerships toward life course-oriented action: (1) proactive, developmental, and longitudinal investment; (2) integration and codesign of care networks; (3) collective, community and systemic impact; and (4) equity in praxis and outcomes. Additionally, the framework articulates foundational structures necessary for implementation: (1) a shared cross-sector theory of change; (2) relational structures enabling shared leadership, trust, and learning; (3) linked data and communication platforms; and (4) alternative funding models for shared savings and prospective investment. The LCHD-informed cross-sector partnership framework presented here can be a guide for the design and implementation of cross-sector partnerships that effectively address childhood adversity and advance health equity through individual-, family-, community-, and system-level intervention.

Introduction

Screening for interpersonal violence is used in healthcare settings to identify patients experiencing violence. However, using unvalidated screening tools may misclassify patients' experience with violence. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation adapted a previously validated intimate partner violence screening tool for use in assessing interpersonal violence and retained the tool's original scoring rubric, despite the new tool's broader scope. This study evaluates the scoring system for detecting safety concerns.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of adult patients and caregivers of pediatric patients at 7 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments (2018-2019). Surveys included the adapted 4-item Hurt Insult Threat Scream tool. Questions are scored by frequency on a Likert scale (1=never; 5=frequently). Scores of 11-20 are considered positive for safety concerns. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for descriptive analyses. Data analyses occurred in 2019-2020.

Results

Of 1,014 participants, 66 (6.5%) reported any frequency of physical violence. Of these, 54 (81.8%) did not reach the threshold score of 11. Of the 1,014 participants, 93 (9.2%) reported any frequency of physical violence or being threatened with harm; 76 of 93 participants (81.7%) scored <11.

Conclusions

Using the original scoring criteria for the adapted Hurt Insult Threat Scream, >80% of participants reporting physical violence did not screen positive for potential safety concerns. The scoring criteria did not reliably identify participants experiencing or at high risk for violence. To improve patient safety, the adapted Hurt Insult Threat Scream scoring rubric should be updated on the basis of stakeholder input and additional validation studies.

Objectives

To describe the epidemiology of pediatric injury-related visits to children's hospital emergency departments (EDs) in the United States during early and later periods of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study using the Pediatric Health Information System, an administrative database to identify injury-related ED visits at 41 United States children's hospitals during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic period (March 15, 2020 to March 14, 2021) and a 3 year comparator period (March 15-March 14, 2017-2020). For these 2 periods, we compared patient characteristics, injury type and severity, primary discharge diagnoses, and disposition, stratified by early (March 15, 2020 to June 30, 2020), middle (July 1, 2020 to October 31, 2020), and late (November 1, 2020 to March 14, 2021) pandemic periods.

Results

Overall, ED injury-related visits decreased by 26.6% during the first year of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, with the largest decline observed in minor injuries. ED injury-related visits resulting in serious-critical injuries increased across the pandemic (15.9% early, 4.9% middle, 20.6% late). Injury patterns with the sharpest relative declines included superficial injuries (41.7% early) and sprains/strains (62.4% early). Mechanisms of injury with the greatest relative increases included (1) firearms (22.9% early; 42.8% middle; 37% late), (2) pedal cyclists (60.4%; 24.9%; 32.2%), (3) other transportation (20.8%; 25.3%; 17.9%), and (4) suffocation/asphyxiation (21.4%; 20.2%; 28.4%) and injuries because of suicide intent (-16.2%, 19.9%, 21.8%).

Conclusions

Pediatric injury-related ED visits declined in general. However, there was a relative increase in injuries with the highest severity, which warrants further investigation.

OBJECTIVE: To compare new mental health diagnoses (NMHD) in children after a firearm injury versus following a motor vehicle collision (MVC). BACKGROUND: A knowledge gap exists regarding childhood mental health diagnoses following firearm injuries, notably in comparison to other forms of traumatic injury. METHODS: We utilized Medicaid MarketScan claims (2010-2016) to conduct a matched case-control study of children ages 3 to 17 years. Children with firearm injuries were matched with up to 3 children with MVC injuries. Severity was determined by injury severity score and emergency department disposition. We used multivariable logistic regression to measure the association of acquiring a NMHD diagnosis in the year postinjury after firearm and MVC mechanisms. RESULTS: We matched 1450 children with firearm injuries to 3691 children with MVC injuries. Compared to MVC injuries, children with firearm injuries were more likely to be black, have higher injury severity score, and receive hospital admission from the emergency department ( P <0.001). The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of NMHD diagnosis was 1.55 [95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.33-1.80] greater after firearm injuries compared to MVC injuries. The odds of a NMHD were higher among children admitted to the hospital compared to those discharged. The increased odds of NMHD after firearm injuries was driven by increases in substance-related and addictive disorders (aOR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.63-2.64) and trauma and stressor-related disorders (aOR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.55-2.76). CONCLUSIONS: Children were found to have 50% increased odds of having a NMHD in the year following a firearm injury as compared to MVC. Programmatic interventions are needed to address childrens mental health following firearm injuries.

Introduction

Despite recent growth in healthcare delivery-based social risk screening, little is known about patient perspectives on these activities. This study evaluates patient and caregiver acceptability of social risk screening.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional survey of 969 adult patients and adult caregivers of pediatric patients recruited from 6 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments across 9 states. Survey items included the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Accountable Health Communities' social risk screening tool and questions about appropriateness of screening and comfort with including social risk data in electronic health records. Logistic regressions evaluated covariate associations with acceptability measures. Data collection occurred from July 2018 to February 2019; data analyses were conducted in February‒March 2019.

Results

Screening was reported as appropriate by 79% of participants; 65% reported comfort including social risks in electronic health records. In adjusted models, higher perceived screening appropriateness was associated with previous exposure to healthcare-based social risk screening (AOR=1.82, 95% CI=1.16, 2.88), trust in clinicians (AOR=1.55, 95% CI=1.00, 2.40), and recruitment from a primary care setting (AOR=1.70, 95% CI=1.23, 2.38). Lower appropriateness was associated with previous experience of healthcare discrimination (AOR=0.66, 95% CI=0.45, 0.95). Higher comfort with electronic health record documentation was associated with previously receiving assistance with social risks in a healthcare setting (AOR=1.47, 95% CI=1.04, 2.07).

Conclusions

A strong majority of adult patients and caregivers of pediatric patients reported that social risk screening was appropriate. Most also felt comfortable including social risk data in electronic health records. Although multiple factors influenced acceptability, the effects were moderate to small. These findings suggest that lack of patient acceptability is unlikely to be a major implementation barrier.

Supplement information

This article is part of a supplement entitled Identifying and Intervening on Social Needs in Clinical Settings: Evidence and Evidence Gaps, which is sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kaiser Permanente, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Introduction

This study aimed to better understand patient and caregiver perspectives on social risk screening across different healthcare settings.

Methods

As part of a mixed-methods multisite study, the authors conducted semistructured interviews with a subset of adult patients and adult caregivers of pediatric patients who had completed the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Accountable Health Communities social risk screening tool between July 2018 and February 2019. Interviews, conducted in English or Spanish, asked about reactions to screening, screening acceptability, preferences for administration, prior screening experiences that informed perspectives, and expectations for social assistance. Basic thematic analysis and constant comparative methods were used to code and develop themes.

Results

Fifty interviews were conducted across 10 study sites in 9 states, including 6 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments. There was broad consensus among interviewees across all sites that social risk screening was acceptable. The following 4 main themes emerged: (1) participants believed screening for social risks is important; (2) participants expressed insight into the connections between social risks and overall health; (3) participants emphasized the importance of patient-centered implementation of social risk screening; and (4) participants recognized limits to the healthcare sector's capacity to address or resolve social risks.

Conclusions

Despite gaps in the availability of social risk-related interventions in healthcare settings, patient-centered social risk screening, including empathy and attention to privacy, may strengthen relationships between patients and healthcare teams.

Supplement information

This article is part of a supplement entitled Identifying and Intervening on Social Needs in Clinical Settings: Evidence and Evidence Gaps, which is sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kaiser Permanente, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Study objective

To identify critical emergency medicine-focused firearm injury research questions and develop an evidence-based research agenda.

Methods

National content experts were recruited to a technical advisory group for the American College of Emergency Physicians Research Committee. Nominal group technique was used to identify research questions by consensus. The technical advisory group decided to focus on 5 widely accepted categorizations of firearm injury. Subgroups conducted literature reviews on each topic and developed preliminary lists of emergency medicine-relevant research questions. In-person meetings and conference calls were held to iteratively refine the extensive list of research questions, following nominal group technique guidelines. Feedback from external stakeholders was reviewed and integrated.

Results

Fifty-nine final emergency medicine-relevant research questions were identified, including questions that cut across all firearm injury topics and questions specific to self-directed violence (suicide and attempted suicide), intimate partner violence, peer (nonpartner) violence, mass violence, and unintentional ("accidental") injury. Some questions could be addressed through research conducted in emergency departments; others would require work in other settings.

Conclusion

The technical advisory group identified key emergency medicine-relevant firearm injury research questions. Emergency medicine-specific data are limited for most of these questions. Funders and researchers should consider increasing their attention to firearm injury prevention and control, particularly to the questions identified here and in other recently developed research agendas.