Iman Foroughmand

In this systematic review, we compared the effectiveness of telehealth with in-person care during the pandemic using PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from March 2020 to April 2023. We included English-language, U.S.-healthcare relevant studies comparing telehealth with in-person care conducted after the onset of the pandemic. Two reviewers independently screened search results, serially extracted data, and independently assessed the risk of bias and strength of evidence. We identified 77 studies, the majority of which (47, 61%) were judged to have a serious or high risk of bias. Differences, if any, in healthcare utilization and clinical outcomes between in-person and telehealth care were generally small and/or not clinically meaningful and varied across the type of outcome and clinical area. For process outcomes, there was a mostly lower rate of missed visits and changes in therapy/medication and higher rates of therapy/medication adherence among patients receiving an initial telehealth visit compared with those receiving in-person care. However, the rates of up-to-date labs/paraclinical assessment were also lower among patients receiving an initial telehealth visit compared with those receiving in-person care. Most studies lacked a standardized approach to assessing outcomes. While we refrain from making an overall conclusion about the performance of telehealth versus in-person visits the use of telehealth is comparable to in-person care across a variety of outcomes and clinical areas. As we transition through the COVID-19 era, models for integrating telehealth with traditional care become increasingly important, and ongoing evaluations of telehealth will be particularly valuable.

Background: Patients with unmet social needs and social determinants of health (SDOH) challenges continue to face a disproportionate risk of increased prevalence of disease, health care use, higher health care costs, and worse outcomes. Some existing predictive models have used the available data on social needs and SDOH challenges to predict health-related social needs or the need for various social service referrals. Despite these one-off efforts, the work to date suggests that many technical and organizational challenges must be surmounted before SDOH-integrated solutions can be implemented on an ongoing, wide-scale basis within most US-based health care organizations. Objective: We aimed to retrieve available information in the electronic health record (EHR) relevant to the identification of persons with social needs and to develop a social risk score for use within clinical practice to better identify patients at risk of having future social needs. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study using EHR data (2016-2021) and data from the US Census American Community Survey. We developed a prospective model using current year-1 risk factors to predict future year-2 outcomes within four 2-year cohorts. Predictors of interest included demographics, previous health care use, comorbidity, previously identified social needs, and neighborhood characteristics as reflected by the area deprivation index. The outcome variable was a binary indicator reflecting the likelihood of the presence of a patient with social needs. We applied a generalized estimating equation approach, adjusting for patient-level risk factors, the possible effect of geographically clustered data, and the effect of multiple visits for each patient. Results: The study population of 1,852,228 patients included middle-aged (mean age range 53.76-55.95 years), White (range 324,279/510,770, 63.49% to 290,688/488,666, 64.79%), and female (range 314,741/510,770, 61.62% to 278,488/448,666, 62.07%) patients from neighborhoods with high socioeconomic status (mean area deprivation index percentile range 28.76-30.31). Between 8.28% (37,137/448,666) and 11.55% (52,037/450,426) of patients across the study cohorts had at least 1 social need documented in their EHR, with safety issues and economic challenges (ie, financial resource strain, employment, and food insecurity) being the most common documented social needs (87,152/1,852,228, 4.71% and 58,242/1,852,228, 3.14% of overall patients, respectively). The model had an area under the curve of 0.702 (95% CI 0.699-0.705) in predicting prospective social needs in the overall study population. Previous social needs (odds ratio 3.285, 95% CI 3.237-3.335) and emergency department visits (odds ratio 1.659, 95% CI 1.634-1.684) were the strongest predictors of future social needs. Conclusions: Our model provides an opportunity to make use of available EHR data to help identify patients with high social needs. Our proposed social risk score could help identify the subset of patients who would most benefit from further social needs screening and data collection to avoid potentially more burdensome primary data collection on all patients in a target population of interest.

BACKGROUND Patients with unmet social needs and social determinants of health (SDOH) challenges continue to face a disproportionate risk of increased prevalence of disease, health care use, higher health care costs, and worse outcomes. Some existing predictive models have used the available data on social needs and SDOH challenges to predict health-related social needs or the need for various social service referrals. Despite these one-off efforts, the work to date suggests that many technical and organizational challenges must be surmounted before SDOH-integrated solutions can be implemented on an ongoing, wide-scale basis within most US-based health care organizations. OBJECTIVE We aimed to retrieve available information in the electronic health record (EHR) relevant to the identification of persons with social needs and to develop a social risk score for use within clinical practice to better identify patients at risk of having future social needs. METHODS We conducted a retrospective study using EHR data (2016-2021) and data from the US Census American Community Survey. We developed a prospective model using current year-1 risk factors to predict future year-2 outcomes within four 2-year cohorts. Predictors of interest included demographics, previous health care use, comorbidity, previously identified social needs, and neighborhood characteristics as reflected by the area deprivation index. The outcome variable was a binary indicator reflecting the likelihood of the presence of a patient with social needs. We applied a generalized estimating equation approach, adjusting for patient-level risk factors, the possible effect of geographically clustered data, and the effect of multiple visits for each patient. RESULTS The study population of 1,852,228 patients included middle-aged (mean age range 53.76-55.95 years), White (range 324,279/510,770, 63.49% to 290,688/488,666, 64.79%), and female (range 314,741/510,770, 61.62% to 278,488/448,666, 62.07%) patients from neighborhoods with high socioeconomic status (mean area deprivation index percentile range 28.76-30.31). Between 8.28% (37,137/448,666) and 11.55% (52,037/450,426) of patients across the study cohorts had at least 1 social need documented in their EHR, with safety issues and economic challenges (ie, financial resource strain, employment, and food insecurity) being the most common documented social needs (87,152/1,852,228, 4.71% and 58,242/1,852,228, 3.14% of overall patients, respectively). The model had an area under the curve of 0.702 (95% CI 0.699-0.705) in predicting prospective social needs in the overall study population. Previous social needs (odds ratio 3.285, 95% CI 3.237-3.335) and emergency department visits (odds ratio 1.659, 95% CI 1.634-1.684) were the strongest predictors of future social needs. CONCLUSIONS Our model provides an opportunity to make use of available EHR data to help identify patients with high social needs. Our proposed social risk score could help identify the subset of patients who would most benefit from further social needs screening and data collection to avoid potentially more burdensome primary data collection on all patients in a target population of interest.