Table 1.
Summary of determinants of social needs screening and referral across multiple levels of the social care implementation framework
| Determinantsa | ||
|---|---|---|
| Awareness (screening) | Assistance (referral) | |
| Societal influences | ||
| Sociopolitical forces | Culture, stigma, and discrimination for having social needs (B) Policies, laws, and regulations (B, F)
|
Culture, stigma, and discrimination for receiving help for social needs (B) Policies, laws, and regulations (B, F)
Chronic underfunding of social safety net (B) |
| Physical structures | Health care access (B, F) | Limited public transportation (B) Density, reach, and diversity of SSOs available (B, F) |
| Clinical context | ||
| Recipients (patients) | Knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs
Previous experiences (positive and negative) with health care, screening (B, F) Quality of relationship with provider (B, F) |
Lack of desire to receive referrals (B) Previous experiences (positive and negative) with health care, assistance (B, F) Quality of relationship with provider (B, F) |
| Recipients (providers and care team members) | Knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs
Skill and experience (B, F) Discomfort, low self-efficacy for screening/discussing social needs (B) |
Knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs
|
| Characteristics of the screening innovation | Relative complexity (B) or simplicity (F) of screening tool and process
Quality of evidence for screening (B, F) |
Inclusion of questions on which social risks the patient desires/needs support with (F) |
| Inner setting | Extent of alignment between screening practices and routine clinical workflows (B, F) Limited time and competing demands during clinic visit (B) Dedicated staff to support screening (B, F) Funding, investment in staff, infrastructure (B, F) Organizational priority, leadership support (B, F) |
Extent of alignment between assistance practices and routine clinical workflows (B, F) Limited time and competing demands during clinic visit (B) No or part-time team members dedicated to assistance (B) Care team members (e.g., social workers, CHWs) with expertise in assistance (F) Funding, investment in staff, infrastructure (B, F) Organizational priority, leadership support (B, F) |
| Bridging factors and referrals | ||
| Characteristics of the referral innovation | NA | Presence of SSRLs and customized resource directories (B, F) SSRLs have limited capacity or access to universal databases to maintain resource information (B) Service fees for bidirectional referral and communication (B) Alignment of SSRL with health care and SSO workflows (B, F) Integration of SSRLs in the EHR (F) |
| Relationships | NA | Bidirectional communication and referral pathways (F) Effective communication and shared goals (F) Quality/trusting relationship (F) Lack of service agreements (B) |
| Social service context | ||
| Inner setting | NA | Specialized services to support unmet social needs (F) Strong ties in the community (trusting relationships with the people they serve) (F) Long waitlists to access resources and strict eligibility requirements (B) Limited resources (staff, services) to address patients’ needs and keep resource offerings up to date (B) Limited capacity to engage with and maintain SSRLs (B) |
Abbreviations: CHWs, community health workers; EHR, electronic health record; NA, not applicable; SDOH, social determinants of health; SSO, social service organization; SSRL, social service referral locator.
Determinants may be a barrier (B) or facilitator (F), depending on their presence or absence and relative positive or negative effect.