Qualitative program evaluation of social determinants of health screening and referral program

Abstract

Although the integration of social determinants of health (SDH) screening and referral programs in clinical settings has rapidly grown, the voice and experience of participants within SDH programs has not been well understood in program evaluations. To qualitatively evaluate a comprehensive SDH screening and referral program based in an academic primary care setting, we conducted a qualitative analysis of a semi-structured, focus group interview of 7 caregivers. We performed inductive coding representing emerging ideas from each transcript using focus group transcripts from families who participated in the SDH screening and referral program. A thematic model was created describing caregivers' experiences with respect to screening, intake, and referral phases of the program. Caregivers reported satisfaction with structural and process-related components of screening, intake, and referral. They expressed a preference for trained patient navigators over physicians for screening and intake for they were perceived to have time to prioritize caregivers' social needs. Caregivers reported disappointment with legal services screening, intake, and referral, citing lack of timely contact from the legal resource team and prematurity of provided legal resources. Overall, caregivers recommend the program, citing that the program provided social support, an environment where expression is encouraged, motivation to address their own health needs, and a convenient location. Overall, caregivers would recommend the program because they feel socially supported. The use of trained patient navigators appears to be instrumental to the successful implementation of the program in clinics, for navigators can provide caregivers with the appropriate time and personal attention they need to complete the survey and discuss their needs. Streamlining the referral process for evaluation of health-harming needs by the medical legal partnership was highlighted as an area for improvement.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 40 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.