ArticleFamily practice2026
Implementing the screening for poverty and related social determinants and intervening to improve knowledge of and links to resources (SPARK) in primary care clinics across Canada.
Article in Family practice, 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.
- Primary care provider and clinic staff perspectives on the collection of demographic and social needs data in primary care clinics across five Canadian provinces.Family medicine and community health · 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
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRoutine systematic collection of social determinants data can inform improvements to health service delivery and system and policy planning.
objectiveThis cohort study reports on the implementation of the SPARK tool to collect and integrate demographic and social needs data in primary care.
methodsThe 20-question SPARK tool was implemented from September 2022 to October 2023 at five primary care clinics. Implementation was evaluated using the following outcomes: acceptability, appropriateness, adoption, feasibility, fidelity, cost, penetration, and sustainability. Data included: clinic checklists (n = 5), training evaluations (n = 33), SPARK tool responses (n = 2063), patient surveys (n = 1368), and provider and staff surveys (n = 36). Survey responses were analyzed using frequency (%) and mean (SD). Open-ended responses were analyzed to identify key themes.
resultsThere was strong acceptability and adoption of the tool. Collection methods contributed to variation in perceived relevance, compatibility and barriers. Among patients, 90.5% indicated the tool was clear and easy to complete, and 84.5% had a positive experience. A minority of patients (7.8%) indicated difficulty answering ≥1 question on SPARK. Among clinic staff and providers, 96.7% reported the tool was useful, and 81.8% had a positive experience. Clinics highlighted concerns with resource allocation and suggested adjustments to collection, integration, and personnel to support implementation.
conclusionsThe SPARK tool is acceptable and feasible for adoption in primary care clinics. This study provides practical insight into implementing demographic and social needs data collection, including adaptations to clinic workflows, enhanced integration platforms, and supports that ensure the sustainability of social needs screening in primary care.
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.