Cited by 258Child and Adolescent HealthSurvey Methodology and NonresponseEmergency and Acute Care Studies

A randomized trial on screening for social determinants of health: the iScreen study

Gottlieb, Laura, Hessler, Danielle, Long, Dayna, Amaya, Anais, Adler, Nancy·2014·Pediatrics

Abstract

Background There is growing interest in clinical screening for pediatric social determinants of health, but little evidence on formats that maximize disclosure rates on a wide range of potentially sensitive topics. We designed a study to examine disclosure rates and hypothesized that there would be no difference in disclosure rates on face-to-face versus electronic screening formats for items other than highly sensitive items. Methods We conducted a randomized trial of electronic versus face-to-face social screening formats in a pediatric emergency department. Consenting English-speaking and Spanish-speaking adult caregivers familiar with the presenting child's household were randomized to social screening via tablet computer (with option for audio assist) versus a face-to-face interview conducted by a fully bilingual/bicultural researcher. Results Almost all caregivers (96.8%) reported at least 1 social need, but rates of reporting on the more sensitive issues (household violence and substance abuse) were significantly higher in electronic format, and disclosure was marginally higher in electronic format for financial insecurity and neighborhood and school safety. There was a significant difference in the proportion of social needs items with higher endorsement in the computer-based group (70%) than the face-to-face group (30%). Conclusions Pediatric clinical sites interested in incorporating caregiver-reported socioeconomic, environmental, and behavioral needs screening sho…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2014-1439

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gottlieb, L., Hessler, D., Long, D., Amaya, A., & Adler, N.
Affiliations
  • Department of Family and Community Medicine, and
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
2014-12-01
Volume
134
Issue
6
Pages
e1611-e1618
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W2045160717
Cited by
258
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 3
FWCI
16.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Child and Adolescent Health
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
Keywords
social determinants of health, pediatric emergency department, electronic screening, tablet computers, face-to-face interviews, disclosure rates, sensitive topics, domestic violence, substance abuse, financial insecurity, neighborhood safety, school safety
MeSH terms
Adult, Child, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Male, Mass Screening, San Francisco, Self Disclosure, Domestic Violence, Substance-Related Disorders, Needs Assessment, Disclosure, Computers, Handheld, Social Determinants of Health

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review