No abstract

Purpose:Little is known about incorporating community data into clinical care. This study sought to understand the clinical associations of cold spots (census tracts with worse income, education, and composite deprivation).Methods: Across 12 practices, we assessed the relationship between cold spots and clinical outcomes (obesity, uncontrolled diabetes, pneumonia vaccination, cancer screening-colon, cervical, and prostate-and aspirin chemoprophylaxis) for 152,962 patients. We geocoded and linked addresses to census tracts and assessed, at the census tract level, the percentage earning less than 200% of the Federal Poverty Level, without high school diplomas, and the social deprivation index (SDI). We labeled those census tracts in the worst quartiles as cold spots and conducted bivariate and logistic regression.Results: There was a 10-fold difference in the proportion of patients in cold spots between the highest (29.1%) and lowest practices (2.6%). Except for aspirin, all outcomes were influenced by cold spots. Fifteen percent of low-education cold-spot patients had uncontrolled diabetes compared with 13% of noncold-spot patients (P < .05). In regression, those in poverty, low education, and SDI cold spots were less likely to receive colon cancer screening (odds ratio [

Public health leaders have advocated for clinical and population-based interventions to address the social determinants of health (SDoH). The American Academy of Family Physicians has worked to support family physicians with addressing the SDoH. However, the extent that family physicians are engaged and the factors that influence this are unknown. Methods: A survey was used to identify actions family physicians had taken to address the SDoH and perceived barriers. Physician and community characteristics were linked. Ordinal logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with engagement in clinical and population-based actions, separately. Results: There were 434 (8.7%) responses. Among respondents, 81.1% were engaged in at least one clinical action, and 43.3% were engaged in at least one population-based action. Time (80.0%) and staffing (64.5%) were the most common barriers. Physician experience was associated with higher levels of clinical engagement, lower median household income was associated with higher levels of population-based engagement, and working for a federally qualified health center (FQHC) was associated with both. Conclusions: The study provides preliminary information suggesting that family physicians are engaged in addressing the SDoH through clinical and population-based actions. Newer family physicians and those working in FQHCs may be good targets for piloting clinical actions to address SDoH and family physician advocates may be more likely to come from an FQHC or in a lower socioeconomic neighborhood. The study also raises questions about the value family physicians serving disadvantaged communities place on clinical interventions to address the SDoH.