ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 0195

Screening for Social Determinants of Health in Patients with SLE: A Point-of-Care Feasibility Study

S. Sam Lim1, Vijay R. Nadipelli2, Michelle Bruno3, Daphne Lew4, Bernard Rubin5, Charmayne M. Dunlop-Thomas6, Kristi R. Mitchell3, Lydia Demetriou7, Jeffrey Berko3 and Alfred Kim8, 1Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 2GSK, Medical Evidence Generation, Philadelphia, PA, 3Atlas Clarity, LLC, San Francisco, CA, 4Center for Biostatistics and Data Science, Institute for Informatics, Data Science, and Biostatistics, Washington University School of Medicine and Washington University School of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, St Louis, MO, 5Progentec Diagnostics, Inc., Oklahoma City, OK, 6Emory University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Atlanta, GA, 7GSK, Global Clinical Operations, Brentford, United Kingdom, 8Washington University School of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, St Louis, MO

Meeting: ACR Convergence 2024

Keywords: Health Services Research, Qualitative Research, quality of care, socioeconomic factors, Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Date: Saturday, November 16, 2024

Title: Healthcare Disparities in Rheumatology Poster I

Session Type: Poster Session A

Session Time: 10:30AM-12:30PM

Background/Purpose: Currently, social determinants of health (SDoH; conditions in which people live) are not routinely screened for in US outpatient rheumatology clinics.1 SLE disproportionally affects patients from underrepresented groups and of lower socioeconomic status, with black patients and those with public insurance more likely to have fragmented care, leading to worse clinical outcomes.2 This study determined the feasibility of routine SDoH screening at the point-of-care in tertiary lupus clinics, and associated barriers and facilitators at physician, care team, and patient levels.

Methods: This observational, prospective, mixed methods study (GSK Study 219011) was conducted in two large, academic lupus clinics in the US. Patients ≥18 years with an established SLE diagnosis and an appointment at one of the clinics during the study were screened for SDoH. Study implementation was completed over 2 weeks (Institution 1, Jul–Aug 2023) and 7 weeks (Institution 2, Aug–Oct 2023). Patient-reported responses to SDoH domains chosen by participating institutions were collected. Patient demographics were collected and an optional patient experience survey was administered to understand SDoH screener readability, comprehension, and willingness to respond. Semi-structured post-implementation interviews with care team members and institutional health equity leaders took place to understand implementation, tool usability and comprehension, clinician acceptance, facilitators of use, and institutional health equity policies. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results: In total, 69 patients with SLE participated in the routine screening of SDoH across the 2 institutions; 65 patients completed the patient experience survey. Overall, 77.5% of patients at Institution 1 screened positive for ≥1 of 4 domains and 93.1% at Institution 2 for ≥1 of 8 domains (Table 1). Most patients found the SDoH screening tool “very easy” to understand (91%, n=59/65), were “very comfortable” answering (80%, n=52/65), and were “happy to be asked” SDoH questions (75%, n=49/65). Qualitative interviews with 15 care team members (Table 1) indicated that implementation caused minimal disruption to clinical workflow and patients typically spent 3─10 minutes completing the tool (Table 2). Clinicians and care teams reported the value and importance of SDoH screening and wanted it to continue in their clinics (Table 2). Reported facilitators to successful SDoH screening included having institutional leadership buy-in to address health equity and a brief screening tool format (≤5 minutes); barriers included limited resources, time, or training to address social needs (Table 3).

Conclusion: Routine SDoH screening was seen as valuable by both patients and care teams. With an appropriately resourced and trained care team, SDoH screening can be successfully implemented to inform clinical decision making and patient care in lupus clinics. Future research should evaluate whether regular SDoH screening for patients with SLE can minimize healthcare disparities and improve care management.

Funding: GSK Study 219011

References

1Taber KA et al. ACR Open Rheumatol 2021;3:305─11

2Walunas TL et al. Arthritis Care Res 2017;69(9):1369–76

Supporting image 1

Table 1. Demographic and SDoH characteristics of patients and care team members at Institution 1 and Institution 2.
*Data obtained from study Data Collection Log completed by each institution; †for Institution 1, if a patient marked a response on the questionnaire for any of the questions in each domain that indicated a social need, they were considered as having a “positive” screen. For Institution 2, the present study used the same scoring algorithm that was used in Institution 2’s electronic health record. Responses to all SDoH domains were optional, therefore, the denominator varies due to missing responses; ‡domains that were only screened at Institution 2; §while Institution 1 had a social worker assigned to their clinic, that person did not sit within the clinic and did not engage in this project.

Supporting image 2

Table 2. Direct care team quotes from qualitative interviews.

Supporting image 3

Table 3. Summarized themes of reported barriers/facilitators to SDoH screening from qualitative interviews.


Disclosures: S. Lim: Accordant, 2, AstraZeneca, 2, Biogen, 5, BMS, 5, Gilead, 5, GSK, 2, Novartis, 5, UCB, 5; V. Nadipelli: GSK, 3, 11, 12, Shareholder; M. Bruno: None; D. Lew: Arthritis Foundation, 5; B. Rubin: GSK, 3, 11, 12, Shareholder, Progentec Diagnostics, Inc., 3; C. Dunlop-Thomas: None; K. Mitchell: Atlas Clarity, 3; L. Demetriou: GSK, 3, 11, 12, Shareholder; J. Berko: Atlas Clarity, 3; A. Kim: Amgen, 2, ANI Pharmaceuticals, 2, AstraZeneca, 5, Atara Bio, 2, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, 2, Cargo Therpeutics, 2, Exagen Diagnostics, 2, 6, GSK, 2, 5, 6, Kypha, 2, 4, 10, Miltenyi Biotech, 2, Novartis, 5, Pfizer, 2, Synthekine, 2, Techtonic Therapeutics, 2, The Rheumatology Education Group, 6.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Lim S, Nadipelli V, Bruno M, Lew D, Rubin B, Dunlop-Thomas C, Mitchell K, Demetriou L, Berko J, Kim A. Screening for Social Determinants of Health in Patients with SLE: A Point-of-Care Feasibility Study [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2024; 76 (suppl 9). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/screening-for-social-determinants-of-health-in-patients-with-sle-a-point-of-care-feasibility-study/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to ACR Convergence 2024

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/screening-for-social-determinants-of-health-in-patients-with-sle-a-point-of-care-feasibility-study/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology