Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:: Those with exposure to abuse, homelessness, and both adverse outcomes constitute a high-risk population for substance use. Addressing abuse and homelessness should be a component of preventing drug risk for screening, treatment, and prevention efforts.

BACKGROUND:Worsening socioeconomic conditions in rural America have been fueling increases in chronic disease and poor health. The goal of this study was to identify cost-effective methods of deploying geographically targeted health surveys in rural areas, which often have limited resources. These health surveys were administered in New York's rural Sullivan County, which has some of the poorest health outcomes in the entire state. METHODS:Comparisons were made for response rates, estimated costs, respondent demographics, and prevalence estimates of a brief health survey delivered by mail and phone using address-based sampling, and in-person using convenience sampling at a sub-county level in New York's rural Sullivan County during 2017. RESULTS:Overall response rates were 27.0% by mail, 8.2% by phone, and 71.4% for convenience in-person surveys. Costs to perform phone surveys were substantially higher than mailed or convenience in-person surveys. All modalities had lower proportions of Hispanic respondents compared to Census estimates. Unadjusted and age-adjusted prevalence estimates were similar between mailed and in-person surveys, but not for phone surveys. CONCLUSIONS:These findings are consistent with declining response rates of phone surveys, which obtained an inadequate sample of rural residents. Though in-person surveys had higher response rates, convenience sampling failed to obtain a geographically distributed sample of rural residents. Of modalities tested, mailed surveys provided the best opportunity to perform geographically targeted rural health surveillance.

STUDY OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:Housing instability is prevalent among emergency department (ED) patients and is known to adversely affect health. We aim to determine the incidence and timing of homeless shelter entry after an ED visit among patients who are not currently homeless. METHODS:We conducted a random-sample survey of ED patients at an urban public hospital from November 2016 to September 2017. Patients provided identifying information and gave informed consent for us to link their survey data with the New York City Department of Homeless Services shelter database. Shelter use was followed prospectively for 12 months after the baseline ED visit. We examined timing of shelter entry in the 12 months after the ED visit, excluding patients who were homeless at baseline. RESULTS:Of 1,929 unique study participants who were not currently homeless, 96 (5.0%) entered a shelter within 12 months of their baseline ED visit. Much of the shelter entry occurred in the first month after the ED visit, with continued yet slower rates of entry in subsequent months. Patients in our sample who entered a shelter were predominantly men and non-Hispanic black, and commonly had past shelter and frequent ED use. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In this single-center study, 5.0% of urban ED patients who were not currently homeless entered a homeless shelter within the year after their ED visit. Particularly if replicated elsewhere, this finding suggests that ED patients may benefit from efforts to identify housing instability and direct them to homelessness prevention programs.

Health and housing consortia in New York City offer a model for bridging the divide between the health care and housing sectors. While staff in these sectors often recognize the need to better integrate their services, there are few models for doing so. In this article we describe the formation of a health and housing consortium in the Bronx, New York City, as well as the successful replication of its model in Brooklyn. While each consortium has some features specific to its service area, the primary goal of both is the same: to provide a neutral space for health care and housing organizations to collaborate in what is otherwise often competitive and fragmented territory. In addition, the work of both consortia coalesces around training and resource development, cross-sector communication, and research and advocacy. We provide examples of the Bronx Consortium's activities in each of these core areas, highlight tangible results to date, and offer recommendations for people interested in undertaking similar efforts.

From April 2016 to June 2017, the Health + Housing Project employed four community health workers who engaged residents of two subsidized housing buildings in New York City to address individuals' broadly defined health needs, including social and economic risk factors. Following the intervention, we observed significant improvements in residents' food security, ability to pay rent, and connection to primary care. No immediate change was seen in acute health care use or more narrowly defined health outcomes. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print March 19, 2020: e1-e4. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2019.305544).

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: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/UNASSIGNED: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/BACKGROUND: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/UNASSIGNED: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.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Emergency departments (EDs) frequently care for patients who are homeless or unstably housed. One promising approach taken by the homeless services system is to provide interventions that attempt to prevent homelessness before it occurs. Experts have suggested that health care settings may be ideal locations to identify and intervene with patients at risk for homelessness, yet little is known even about the basic characteristics of patients who might benefit from such interventions. METHODS:We conducted in-depth, one-on-one qualitative interviews with ED patients who had become homeless within the past 6 months. Using a semistructured interview guide, we asked patients about their pathways into homelessness and what might have prevented them from becoming homeless. Interviews were digitally recorded and professionally transcribed. Transcripts were coded line by line by multiple investigators who then met as a group to discuss and refine codes in an iterative fashion. RESULTS:Interviews were completed with 31 patients. Mean interview length was 42 minutes. Four main themes emerged: 1) unique stories yet common social and health contributors to homelessness, 2) personal agency versus larger structural forces, 3) limitations in help from family or friends, and 4) homelessness was not expected. CONCLUSIONS:These findings demonstrate gaps in current homeless prevention services and can help inform future interventions for unstably housed and homeless ED patients. More immediately, the findings provide rich, unique context to the lives of a vulnerable patient population commonly seen in EDs.