A New Measure of Quantified Social Health Is Associated With Levels of Discomfort, Capability, and Mental and General Health Among Patients Seeking Musculoskeletal Specialty Care.
A better understanding of the correlation between social health and mindsets, comfort, and capability could aid the design of individualized care models. However, currently available social health checklists are relatively lengthy, burdensome, and designed for descriptive screening purposes rather than quantitative assessment for clinical research, patient monitoring, or quality improvement. Alternatives such as area deprivation index are prone to overgeneralization, lack depth in regard to personal circumstances, and evolve rapidly with gentrification. To fill this void, we aimed to identify the underlying themes of social health and develop a new, personalized and quantitative social health measure.
(1) What underlying themes of social health (factors) among a subset of items derived from available legacy checklists and questionnaires can be identified and quantified using a brief social health measure? (2) How much of the variation in levels of discomfort, capability, general health, feelings of distress, and unhelpful thoughts regarding symptoms is accounted for by quantified social health?
In this two-stage, cross-sectional study among people seeking musculoskeletal specialty care in an urban area in the United States, all English and Spanish literate adults (ages 18 to 89 years) were invited to participate in two separate cohorts to help develop a provisional new measure of quantified social health. In a first stage (December 2021 to August 2022), 291 patients rated a subset of items derived from commonly used social health checklists and questionnaires (Tool for Health and Resilience in Vulnerable Environments [THRIVE]; Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patient Assets, Risks and Experiences [PRAPARE]; and Accountable Health Communities Health-Related Social Needs Screening Tool [HRSN]), of whom 95% (275 of 291; 57% women; mean ± SD age 49 ± 16 years; 51% White, 33% Hispanic; 21% Spanish speaking; 38% completed high school or less) completed all items required to perform factor analysis and were included. Given that so few patients decline participation (estimated at < 5%), we did not track them. We then randomly parsed participants into (1) a learning cohort (69% [189 of 275]) used to identify underlying themes of social health and develop a new measure of quantified social health using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and (2) a validation cohort (31% [86 of 275]) used to test and internally validate the findings on data not used in its development. During the validation process, we found inconsistencies in the correlations of quantified social health with levels of discomfort and capability between the learning and validation cohort that could not be resolved or explained despite various sensitivity analyses. We therefore identified an additional cohort of 356 eligible patients (February 2023 to June 2023) to complete a new extended subset of items directed at financial security and social support (5 items from the initial stage and 11 new items derived from the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List, Financial Well-Being Scale, Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey, and 6-item Social Support Questionnaire, and "I have to work multiple jobs in order to finance my life" was self-created), of whom 95% (338 of 356; 53% women; mean ± SD age 48 ± 16 years; 38% White, 48% Hispanic; 31% Spanish speaking; 47% completed high school or less) completed all items required to perform factor analysis and were included. We repeated factor analysis to identify the underlying themes of social health and then applied item response theory-based graded response modeling to identify the items that were best able to measure differences in social health (high item discrimination) with the lowest possible floor and ceiling effects (proportion of participants with lowest or highest possible score, respectively; a range of different item difficulties). We also assessed the CFA factor loadings (correlation of an individual item with the identified factor) and modification indices (parameters that suggest whether specific changes to the model would improve model fit appreciably). We then iteratively removed items based on low factor loadings (< 0.4, generally regarded as threshold for items to be considered stable) and high modification indices until model fit in CFA was acceptable (root mean square of error approximation [RMSEA] < 0.05). We then assessed local dependencies among the remaining items (strong relationships between items unrelated to the underlying factor) using Yen Q3 and aimed to combine only items with local dependencies of < 0.25. Because we exhausted our set of items, we were not able to address all local dependencies. Among the remaining items, we then repeated CFA to assess model fit (RMSEA) and used Cronbach alpha to assess internal consistency (the extent to which different subsets of the included items would provide the same measurement outcomes). We performed a differential item functioning analysis to assess whether certain items are rated discordantly based on differences in self-reported age, gender, race, or level of education, which can introduce bias. Last, we assessed the correlations of the new quantified social health measure with various self-reported sociodemographic characteristics (external validity) as well as level of discomfort, capability, general health, and mental health (clinical relevance) using bivariate and multivariable linear regression analyses.
We identified two factors representing financial security (11 items) and social support (5 items). After removing problematic items based on our prespecified protocol, we selected 5 items to address financial security (including "I am concerned that the money I have or will save won't last") and 4 items to address social support (including "There is a special person who is around when I am in need"). The selected items of the new quantified social health measure (Social Health Scale [SHS]) displayed good model fit in CFA (RMSEA 0.046, confirming adequate factor structure) and good internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.80 to 0.84), although there were some remaining local dependencies that could not be resolved by removing items because we exhausted our set of items. We found that more disadvantaged quantitative social health was moderately associated with various sociodemographic characteristics (self-reported Black race [regression coefficient (RC) 2.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29 to 4.9)], divorced [RC 2.5 (95% CI 0.23 to 4.8)], unemployed [RC 1.7 (95% CI 0.023 to 3.4)], uninsured [RC 3.5 (95% CI 0.33 to 6.7)], and earning less than USD 75,000 per year [RC 2.7 (95% CI 0.020 to 5.4) to 6.8 (95% CI 4.3 to 9.3)]), slightly with higher levels of discomfort (RC 0.055 [95% CI 0.16 to 0.093]), slightly with lower levels of capability (RC -0.19 [95% CI -0.34 to -0.035]), slightly with worse general health (RC 0.13 [95% CI 0.069 to 0.18]), moderately with higher levels of unhelpful thoughts (RC 0.17 [95% CI 0.13 to 0.22]), and moderately with greater feelings of distress (RC 0.23 [95% CI 0.19 to 0.28]).
A quantitative measure of social health with domains of financial security and social support had acceptable psychometric properties and seems clinically relevant given the associations with levels of discomfort, capability, and general health. It is important to mention that people with disadvantaged social health should not be further disadvantaged by using a quantitative measure of social health to screen or cherry pick in contexts of incentivized or mandated reporting, which could worsen inequities in access and care. Rather, one should consider disadvantaged social health and its associated stressors as one of several previously less considered and potentially modifiable aspects of comprehensive musculoskeletal health.
A personalized, quantitative measure of social health would be useful to better capture and understand the role of social health in comprehensive musculoskeletal specialty care. The SHS can be used to measure the distinct contribution of social health to various aspects of musculoskeletal health to inform development of personalized, whole-person care pathways. Clinicians may also use the SHS to identify and monitor patients with disadvantaged social circumstances. This line of inquiry may benefit from additional research including a larger number of items focused on a broader range of social health to further develop the SHS.
Brinkman N
，Broekman M
，Teunis T
，Choi S
，Ring D
，Jayakumar P
... -
《-》
Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care.
Primary care is an important setting in which to treat tobacco addiction. However, the rates at which providers address smoking cessation and the success of that support vary. Strategies can be implemented to improve and increase the delivery of smoking cessation support (e.g. through provider training), and to increase the amount and breadth of support given to people who smoke (e.g. through additional counseling or tailored printed materials).
To assess the effectiveness of strategies intended to increase the success of smoking cessation interventions in primary care settings. To assess whether any effect that these interventions have on smoking cessation may be due to increased implementation by healthcare providers.
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries to 10 September 2020.
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs (cRCTs) carried out in primary care, including non-pregnant adults. Studies investigated a strategy or strategies to improve the implementation or success of smoking cessation treatment in primary care. These strategies could include interventions designed to increase or enhance the quality of existing support, or smoking cessation interventions offered in addition to standard care (adjunctive interventions). Intervention strategies had to be tested in addition to and in comparison with standard care, or in addition to other active intervention strategies if the effect of an individual strategy could be isolated. Standard care typically incorporates physician-delivered brief behavioral support, and an offer of smoking cessation medication, but differs across studies. Studies had to measure smoking abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer.
We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome - smoking abstinence - was measured using the most rigorous intention-to-treat definition available. We also extracted outcome data for quit attempts, and the following markers of healthcare provider performance: asking about smoking status; advising on cessation; assessment of participant readiness to quit; assisting with cessation; arranging follow-up for smoking participants. Where more than one study investigated the same strategy or set of strategies, and measured the same outcome, we conducted meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects methods to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
We included 81 RCTs and cRCTs, involving 112,159 participants. Fourteen were rated at low risk of bias, 44 at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. We identified moderate-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that the provision of adjunctive counseling by a health professional other than the physician (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.55; I2 = 44%; 22 studies, 18,150 participants), and provision of cost-free medications (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.76; I2 = 63%; 10 studies,7560 participants) increased smoking quit rates in primary care. There was also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that the addition of tailored print materials to standard smoking cessation treatment increased the number of people who had successfully stopped smoking at six months' follow-up or more (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.59; I2 = 37%; 6 studies, 15,978 participants). There was no clear evidence that providing participants who smoked with biomedical risk feedback increased their likelihood of quitting (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.41; I2 = 40%; 7 studies, 3491 participants), or that provider smoking cessation training (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.41; I2 = 66%; 7 studies, 13,685 participants) or provider incentives (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 2454 participants) increased smoking abstinence rates. However, in assessing the former two strategies we judged the evidence to be of low certainty and in assessing the latter strategies it was of very low certainty. We downgraded the evidence due to imprecision, inconsistency and risk of bias across these comparisons. There was some indication that provider training increased the delivery of smoking cessation support, along with the provision of adjunctive counseling and cost-free medications. However, our secondary outcomes were not measured consistently, and in many cases analyses were subject to substantial statistical heterogeneity, imprecision, or both, making it difficult to draw conclusions. Thirty-four studies investigated multicomponent interventions to improve smoking cessation rates. There was substantial variation in the combinations of strategies tested, and the resulting individual study effect estimates, precluding meta-analyses in most cases. Meta-analyses provided some evidence that adjunctive counseling combined with either cost-free medications or provider training enhanced quit rates when compared with standard care alone. However, analyses were limited by small numbers of events, high statistical heterogeneity, and studies at high risk of bias. Analyses looking at the effects of combining provider training with flow sheets to aid physician decision-making, and with outreach facilitation, found no clear evidence that these combinations increased quit rates; however, analyses were limited by imprecision, and there was some indication that these approaches did improve some forms of provider implementation.
There is moderate-certainty evidence that providing adjunctive counseling by an allied health professional, cost-free smoking cessation medications, and tailored printed materials as part of smoking cessation support in primary care can increase the number of people who achieve smoking cessation. There is no clear evidence that providing participants with biomedical risk feedback, or primary care providers with training or incentives to provide smoking cessation support enhance quit rates. However, we rated this evidence as of low or very low certainty, and so conclusions are likely to change as further evidence becomes available. Most of the studies in this review evaluated smoking cessation interventions that had already been extensively tested in the general population. Further studies should assess strategies designed to optimize the delivery of those interventions already known to be effective within the primary care setting. Such studies should be cluster-randomized to account for the implications of implementation in this particular setting. Due to substantial variation between studies in this review, identifying optimal characteristics of multicomponent interventions to improve the delivery of smoking cessation treatment was challenging. Future research could use component network meta-analysis to investigate this further.
Lindson N
，Pritchard G
，Hong B
，Fanshawe TR
，Pipe A
，Papadakis S
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
