ArticleLearning health systems2025
A partner-informed approach to prioritizing social risks for research in a learning health system.
Article in Learning health systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A partner-informed approach to prioritizing social risks for research in a learning health system.Learning health systems · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To prioritize social risks (individual-level social and economic conditions) that may influence a person's health for inclusion in a national survey of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system patients. Data Sources and Study Setting: Quantitative ratings of candidate survey measures were obtained from a national Advisory Group of researchers, clinicians, Veterans, and VA operations leaders; qualitative input was collected from the Advisory Group and Veterans. Study Design: We solicited input on social risk prioritization across four phases: (1) candidate social risks were identified through a literature review and existing screening tools, (2) Advisory Group members ( Data Collection/Extraction Methods: Selection of social risks for survey inclusion was based on an a priori definition of a social risk and relevance to Veterans (phase 1), quantitative and qualitative input from the Advisory Group (phases 2 and 3), and qualitative Veteran input (phase 4). Principal Findings: An initial list of 37 social risks was pared down to 18 for inclusion in a national survey: financial strain, health care/medicine access and affordability, food insecurity, homelessness/housing insecurity, transportation barriers, digital access/literacy, utilities insecurity, social support, caregiver responsibilities, discrimination experiences, interpersonal violence, education, employment, health literacy, legal problems or exposure to the justice system, race/ethnicity, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Conclusions: Our partner-informed approach combining quantitative and qualitative input offers a road map for other learning health systems seeking to prioritize social risks for evidence generation.
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.