ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026
Social Needs Screening Tools for Clinical Populations in Australia and New Zealand: A Scoping Review and Critical Analysis.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2026. 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.
- Assessing Unmet Social Needs in Multiple Sclerosis Care in Australia: A Qualitative Assessment of Feasibility, Barriers and Enablers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSocial determinants of health account for approximately 50% of health outcomes, yet social needs are rarely assessed as part of routine clinical care. We aimed to conduct a scoping review of screening tools for assessing social needs within clinical practice in Australia and New Zealand.
methodsThis scoping review was conducted according to our preregistered protocol (https://osf.io/d6evu). We searched scientific and grey literature for Australian or New Zealand studies that developed and/or evaluated social needs screening tools for adult patients. Extracted data included tool characteristics, validity, comprehensiveness, and proposed interventions. Actionability, that is, detailed specification of behaviour, was assessed using the Action, Actor, Context, Target and Time framework.
resultsEight studies were included, describing five Australian screening tools (none from New Zealand), with varied characteristics and validity measures. Tools frequently screened for employment, economic stability, housing, support systems, and social and community context. Two tools covered all social need domains, and one provided detailed behavioural specifications. However, none outlined referral pathways for identified needs.
conclusionsWe identified five social needs screening tools. Most lacked comprehensiveness and actionability, and none integrated referral pathways. While these tools may represent a first step in identifying social needs in clinical care, addressing these gaps is essential for meaningful impact. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Our research team comprised people living with chronic health conditions, clinicians, researchers, and social epidemiologists who all contributed to study design, conduct and interpretation of data.
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.