↓ Skip to main content

Patient Perspectives on Addressing Social Needs in Primary Care Using a Screening and Resource Referral Intervention

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, December 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Patient Perspectives on Addressing Social Needs in Primary Care Using a Screening and Resource Referral Intervention
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, December 2019
DOI 10.1007/s11606-019-05397-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clarissa Hsu, Stephanie Cruz, Hilary Placzek, Michelle Chapdelaine, Sara Levin, Fabiola Gutierrez, Sara Standish, Ian Maki, Mary Carl, Miriam Rosa Orantes, Duffy Newman, Allen Cheadle

Abstract

Interest is growing in interventions to address social needs in clinical settings. However, little is known about patients' perceptions and experiences with these interventions. To evaluate patients' experiences and patient-reported outcomes of a primary care-based intervention to help patients connect with community resources using trained volunteer advocates. Qualitative telephone interviews with patients who had worked with the volunteer advocates. Sample and recruitment targets were equally distributed between patients who had at least one reported success in meeting an identified need and those who had no reported needs met, based on the database used to document patient encounters. One hundred two patients. Patients at the study clinic were periodically screened for social needs. If needs were identified, they were referred to a trained volunteer advocate who further assessed their needs, provided them with resource referrals, and followed up with them on whether their need was met. Thematic analysis was used to code the data. Interviewed patients appreciated the services offered, especially the follow-up. Patients' ability to access the resource to which they were referred was enhanced by assistance with filling out forms, calling community resources, and other types of navigation. Patients also reported that interacting with the advocates made them feel listened to and cared for, which they perceived as noteworthy in their lives. This patient-reported information provides key insights into a human-centered intervention in a clinical environment. Our findings highlight what works in clinical interventions addressing social needs and provide outcomes that are difficult to measure using existing quantitative metrics. Patients experienced the intervention as a therapeutic relationship/working alliance, a type of care that correlates with positive outcomes such as treatment adherence and quality of life. These insights will help design more patient-centered approaches to providing holistic patient care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Master 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 23 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Psychology 5 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 25 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,153,632
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#958
of 7,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,239
of 468,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#33
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 468,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 249 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.