Evidence mapPaperPMID 35987527Full record

Trial reportAmerican journal of preventive medicine2022

Motivators, Barriers, and Preferences to Engagement With Offered Social Care Assistance Among People With Diabetes: A Mixed Methods Study.

Alicia J Cohen, Nicole Isaacson, Michelle Torby, Alyssa Smith, Guanghao Zhang, Minal R Patel

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in American journal of preventive medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Building Tailored Resource Guides to Address Social Risks and Advance Health Equity in the Veterans Health Administration.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Alicia J CohenCenter of Innovation in Long Term Services and Supports (LTSS-COIN), VA Providence Healthcare System, Providence, Rhode Island; Department of Family Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island; Department of Health Services, Policy, & Practice, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Nicole IsaacsonDepartment of Health Behavior & Health Education, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Michelle TorbyDepartment of Health Behavior & Health Education, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Alyssa SmithDepartment of Health Behavior & Health Education, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Guanghao ZhangDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Minal R PatelDepartment of Health Behavior & Health Education, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: minalrp@umich.edu.
Michigan Department of Health and Human Services · USBrown University · USUniversity of Michigan · US

Funding

Pilot and Feasibility ProgramP30DK092926 · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · 2025 to 2025
$779k
HSRD VA IK2 HX003013NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092926NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK116715
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA substantial proportion of patients screening positive for social risks either decline assistance or do not follow-up with offered resources. This study examined patient interest in and engagement with offered social care assistance among adults with poorly controlled diabetes at an academic medical center.

methodsSurveys (n=307) and purposively sampled follow-up interviews (n=40) were conducted 6 months after randomization to receive guided online self-navigation or in-person assistance to address unmet social needs. Integrated mixed methods (data collected in 2019-2021) explored the motivators, barriers, and preferences regarding the uptake of offered assistance. Results were analyzed in 2021 using descriptive statistics, rapid qualitative analysis, and joint display models.

resultsA total of 77% of people randomized to online self-navigation and 14% randomized to in-person assistance engaged with offered assistance. Motivators for engagement were similar across groups and included ease of use, anticipating assistance that could address 1 or more needs, and interest in learning more about available resources. Barriers to engagement included not needing or desiring assistance, participants perceiving that offered assistance was not relevant to their needs or that they would not qualify, competing priorities/forgetting, previous negative experiences or stigma, and technology or access challenges (online self-navigation group). Preferences around offered assistance that directly addressed barriers to uptake included changing messaging and framing around offered help and the ability to tailor modalities.

conclusionsThere are key barriers to the use of social care assistance that may directly reflect the process by which individuals are screened and offered assistance. Strategies to increase uptake should be patient centered and ideally provide multiple options for type of assistance and mode of engagement.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusSocial SupportAdultDelivery of Health CareHumansSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID35987527
PMCPMC10615322
OpenAlexW4292079372

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.