California Policy Lab, Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California; Social Interventions Research & Evaluation Network, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Humana Healthcare Research, Louisville, Kentucky.
Am J Prev Med. 2023 Dec;65(6):1163-1171. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2023.06.006. Epub 2023 Jun 10.
Concerns about the opportunity costs of social screening initiatives have led some healthcare organizations to consider using social deprivation indices (area-level social risks) as proxies for self-reported needs (individual-level social risks). Yet, little is known about the effectiveness of such substitutions across different populations.
This analysis explores how well the highest quartile (cold spot) of three different area-level social risk measures-the Social Deprivation Index, Area Deprivation Index, and Neighborhood Stress Score-corresponds with six individual-level social risks and three risk combinations among a national sample of Medicare Advantage members (N=77,503). Data were derived from area-level measures and cross-sectional survey data collected between October 2019 and February 2020. Agreement between individual and individual-level social risks, sensitivity values, specificity values, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values was calculated for all measures in summer/fall 2022.
Agreement between area and individual-level social risks ranged from 53% to 77%. Sensitivity for each risk and risk category never exceeded 42%; specificity values ranged from 62% to 87%. Positive predictive values ranged from 8% to 70%, and negative predictive values ranged from 48% to 93%. There were modest performance discrepancies across area-level measures.
These findings provide additional evidence that area-level deprivation indices may be inconsistent indicators of individual-level social risks, supporting policy efforts to promote individual-level social screening programs in healthcare settings.
由于对社会筛选计划的机会成本的担忧,一些医疗机构开始考虑使用社会剥夺指数(地区层面的社会风险)来替代自我报告的需求(个人层面的社会风险)。然而,对于这种替代在不同人群中的有效性,我们知之甚少。
本分析探讨了三种不同的地区层面社会风险指标(社会剥夺指数、地区剥夺指数和邻里压力得分)的最高四分位数(冷点)与全国医疗保险优势计划成员(N=77503)的六个个人层面社会风险和三个风险组合之间的吻合程度。数据来自于 2019 年 10 月至 2020 年 2 月期间收集的地区层面措施和横断面调查数据。在 2022 年夏季/秋季计算了所有指标的个体和个体层面社会风险、灵敏度值、特异性值、阳性预测值和阴性预测值之间的一致性。
地区和个体层面社会风险之间的一致性从 53%到 77%不等。每个风险和风险类别的敏感性从未超过 42%;特异性值范围从 62%到 87%。阳性预测值范围从 8%到 70%,阴性预测值范围从 48%到 93%。地区层面指标之间存在适度的性能差异。
这些发现进一步证明,地区层面的剥夺指数可能是个体层面社会风险的不一致指标,支持在医疗保健环境中促进个体层面社会筛选计划的政策努力。