Housing Instability Screening and Referral Programs: A Scoping Review.

IF 2.3 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Shravan Asthana, Luis Gago, Joshua Garcia, Molly Beestrum, Teresa Pollack, Lori Post, Cynthia Barnard, Mita Sanghavi Goel
{"title":"Housing Instability Screening and Referral Programs: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Shravan Asthana, Luis Gago, Joshua Garcia, Molly Beestrum, Teresa Pollack, Lori Post, Cynthia Barnard, Mita Sanghavi Goel","doi":"10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.08.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Housing instability in the United States is a critical social determinant of health, influencing health outcomes and health care utilization. This scoping review aimed to analyze literature on US health system screening and response programs addressing housing instability, highlighting methodologies, geographic and demographic variations, and policy implications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adhering to PRISMA-ScR guidelines, the review included studies focusing on US health systems that screen and refer for housing instability. Major scholarly databases, including PubMed and Scopus, were queried. Screening and response program characteristics, methodologies, and outcomes were characterized.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty studies published between 2003 and 2023 were included in this study. Included studies were primarily cross-sectional (26.7%) or quality improvement (20.0%), among 9 other designs. Screening programs were predominantly implemented in academic hospital systems (46.7%) and in the Northeast (63.3%). Of the 25 adult population studies, 68.0% were in outpatient settings, and of the 23 studies providing detailed information on their process, 52.2% used electronic health record entry. Of the 22 studies that describe their screening tool, 15 used institution-specific tools, and only 4 of the remaining 7 studies used identical tools. Of the 20 studies that described their response to positive screenings, 13 provided patients with a paper or electronic referral to a collaborating community partner, while only 6 aided the patient in connecting with community resources.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study found significant variability in screening and response programs for housing instability among US health care providers. A lack of standardized definitions and methodologies hampers effective comparison and implementation of these programs. Future research should focus on standardizing screening methods and measurement of interventions and outcomes to address housing instability.</p>","PeriodicalId":14835,"journal":{"name":"Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.08.007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Housing instability in the United States is a critical social determinant of health, influencing health outcomes and health care utilization. This scoping review aimed to analyze literature on US health system screening and response programs addressing housing instability, highlighting methodologies, geographic and demographic variations, and policy implications.

Methods: Adhering to PRISMA-ScR guidelines, the review included studies focusing on US health systems that screen and refer for housing instability. Major scholarly databases, including PubMed and Scopus, were queried. Screening and response program characteristics, methodologies, and outcomes were characterized.

Results: Thirty studies published between 2003 and 2023 were included in this study. Included studies were primarily cross-sectional (26.7%) or quality improvement (20.0%), among 9 other designs. Screening programs were predominantly implemented in academic hospital systems (46.7%) and in the Northeast (63.3%). Of the 25 adult population studies, 68.0% were in outpatient settings, and of the 23 studies providing detailed information on their process, 52.2% used electronic health record entry. Of the 22 studies that describe their screening tool, 15 used institution-specific tools, and only 4 of the remaining 7 studies used identical tools. Of the 20 studies that described their response to positive screenings, 13 provided patients with a paper or electronic referral to a collaborating community partner, while only 6 aided the patient in connecting with community resources.

Conclusion: This study found significant variability in screening and response programs for housing instability among US health care providers. A lack of standardized definitions and methodologies hampers effective comparison and implementation of these programs. Future research should focus on standardizing screening methods and measurement of interventions and outcomes to address housing instability.

住房不稳定性筛查和转介计划:范围审查。
背景:在美国,住房不稳定是影响健康的一个重要社会决定因素,会影响健康结果和医疗保健的使用。本范围综述旨在分析有关美国卫生系统筛查和应对住房不稳定性计划的文献,重点关注方法、地域和人口差异以及政策影响:该综述遵循 PRISMA-ScR 指南,纳入了有关美国医疗系统筛查和转诊住房不稳定性的研究。检索了主要的学术数据库,包括 PubMed 和 Scopus。对筛查和响应计划的特点、方法和结果进行了描述:本研究纳入了 2003 年至 2023 年间发表的 30 项研究。所纳入的研究主要是横断面研究(26.7%)或质量改进研究(20.0%),还有其他 9 种设计。筛查计划主要在学术医院系统(46.7%)和东北地区(63.3%)实施。在 25 项成人人群研究中,68.0% 的研究是在门诊环境中进行的,在 23 项提供详细过程信息的研究中,52.2% 的研究使用了电子健康记录输入。在介绍筛查工具的 22 项研究中,15 项使用了特定机构的工具,其余 7 项研究中只有 4 项使用了相同的工具。20 项研究介绍了对筛查结果呈阳性的应对措施,其中 13 项研究向患者提供了转诊至合作社区伙伴的纸质或电子转诊单,只有 6 项研究帮助患者联系了社区资源:本研究发现,美国医疗服务提供者在住房不稳定性筛查和应对方案方面存在很大差异。缺乏标准化的定义和方法阻碍了这些计划的有效比较和实施。未来的研究应重点关注筛查方法的标准化以及干预措施和结果的测量,以解决住房不稳定问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.30%
发文量
116
审稿时长
49 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信