ArticleFamily medicine and community health2026
Primary care provider and clinic staff perspectives on the collection of demographic and social needs data in primary care clinics across five Canadian provinces.
Article in Family medicine and community health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study reports on the barriers and facilitators experienced by primary care providers, clinic staff and clinic leadership when implementing the SPARK Tool to collect demographic and social needs data in primary care clinics across Canada.
designA qualitative process evaluation was conducted using semistructured interviews and focus groups to identify facilitators and barriers to implementing the SPARK Tool, comprising 20 demographic and social needs questions, in primary care. A SPARK Tool Implementation Logic Model was developed to guide the implementation process.
settingThe SPARK Tool was implemented over 6 months, from September 2022 to October 2023, at five primary care clinics across five Canadian provinces.
participants49 participants, including primary care providers, clinic staff and leadership, participated in an interview or focus group as part of this 6-month implementation study.
resultsKey facilitators included leadership support, the clinic's context (eg, staff availability and engagement, multidisciplinary teams), staff training and the provision of accessible materials. Barriers involved technological challenges, time constraints, privacy concerns and language limitations. Overall, the SPARK Tool facilitated the systematic and routine collection of demographic and social needs data, supporting individualised care plans informed by a more comprehensive capture of patient needs. The SPARK Tool Implementation Logic Model was adapted based on the findings of this study, which represent the adapted model's core components, including prerequisites, inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes.
conclusionsThe study highlighted the potential of the SPARK Tool to integrate demographic and social needs data into primary care workflows, thereby improving individualised care and facilitating clinic-level service planning. It emphasised the importance of addressing barriers to ensure equitable implementation and long-term success.
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.