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.