ArticleBJGP open2025
Social determinants of health screening tool: systematic review and Delphi study.
Article in BJGP open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a personal competency evaluation indicator system for tuberculosis health educators: a scoping review and Delphi study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Expert Consensus on Indicators of Social Determinants of Health: A Modified Delphi Study.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocial determinants of health (SDOH) critically influence population and individual-level outcomes, but we do not collect this information routinely in primary care.
aimTo develop a screening tool for SDOH relevant to UK settings using systematic review and Delphi methodology to identify suitable questions. DESIGN &
settingA systematic review and Delphi study were undertaken.
methodFor the systematic review, five databases and grey literature were searched. Selected studies included questions or tools that screened for SDOH relevant to UK settings. Included questions and tools were measured against the eight gold standard steps for measure development. Data were thematically analysed and arranged into pre-specified domains. For the Delphi study, individuals with an interest in SDOH were invited to take part in a three-stage modified Delphi study. Ranking of 172 items in survey 1, rating of 111 items in survey 2, and ranking of 56 items in survey 3 led to one question being selected per 10 pre-specified domains. Inductive content analysis of free-text responses from the surveys was performed.
resultsOf 7889 citations, 104 studies were included in the systematic review. Screening primarily took place in clinical settings using written formats. Seven participants took part in the first Delphi survey. Prioritised questions were direct, had binary answers, had specific wording, were concerned with current situation, and had immediate impacts on health.
conclusionThe review provides a comprehensive overview of screening questions and tools for collecting information on SDOH. We present a 10-item screening tool from the highest ranked questions that can be used to screen for SDOH in primary care settings in the UK.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.