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.

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

PURPOSE Based on the recognition that food insecurity (FI) is associated with poor health across the life course, many US health systems are actively exploring ways to help patients access food resources. This review synthesizes findings from studies examining the effects of health care-based interventions designed to reduce FI. METHODS We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published from January 2000 through September 2018 that described health carebased FI interventions. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated and pooled when appropriate. Study quality was rated using Grading Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation criteria. RESULTS Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria and examined a range of FI interventions and outcomes. Based on study design and sample size, 74% were rated low or very low quality. Studies of referral-based interventions reported moderate increases in patient food program referrals (SMD = 0.67, 95% CI, 0.36-0.98; SMD = 1.42, 95% CI, 0.76-2.08) and resource use (pooled SMD = 0.54, 95% CI, 0.31-0.78). Studies describing interventions providing food or vouchers reported mixed results for the actual change in fruit/vegetable intake, averaging to no impact when pooled (-0.03, 95% CI,-0.66 to 0.61). Few studies evaluated health or utilization outcomes; these generally reported small but positive effects. CONCLUSIONS Although a growing base of literature explores health care-based FI interventions, the low number and low quality of studies limit inferences about their effectiveness. More rigorous evaluation of FI interventions that includes health and utilization outcomes is needed to better understand roles for the health care sector in addressing FI.

Evaluations of health care-based screening programs for social risks often report that a relatively small proportion of patients screening positive for social risk factors are interested in receiving assistance from their health care teams to address them. The relatively low number of patients who desire assistance is relevant to the growing number of initiatives in US health care settings designed to collect data on and address patients' social risks. We highlight multiple studies that have found differences between positive risks screens and desire for assistance. We explore possible explanations for those differences-focusing on the fallibility of screening tools as well as patient preferences, priorities, and lived experiences-and the potential implications for health equity.