Screening for the social determinants of health in clinical practice is still widely debated. A scoping review was used to (1) explore the various screening tools that are available to identify social risk, (2) examine the impact that screening for social determinants has on health and social outcomes, and (3) identify factors that promote the uptake of screening in routine clinical care. Over the last two decades, a growing number of screening tools have been developed to help frontline health workers ask about the social determinants of health in clinical care. In addition to clinical practice guidelines that recommend screening for specific areas of social risk (e.g., violence in pregnancy), there is also a growing body of evidence exploring the use of screening or case finding for identifying multiple domains of social risk (e.g., poverty, food insecurity, violence, unemployment, and housing problems). There is increasing traction within the medical field for improving social history taking and integrating more formal screening for social determinants of health within clinical practice. There is also a growing number of high-quality evidence-based reviews that identify interventions that are effective in promoting health equity at the individual patient level, and at broader community and structural levels.

Background: Youth often experience unique pathways into homelessness, such as family conflict, child abuse and neglect. Most research has focused on adult homeless populations, yet youth have specific needs that require adapted interventions. This review aims to synthesize evidence on interventions for youth and assess their impacts on health, social, and equity outcomes. Methods: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and other databases from inception until February 9, 2018 for systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials on youth interventions conducted in high income countries. We screened title and abstract and full text for inclusion, and data extraction were completed in duplicate, following the PRISMA-E (equity) review approach. Results: Our search identified 11,936 records. Four systematic reviews and 18 articles on randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Many studies reported on interventions including individual and family therapies, skill-building, case management, and structural interventions. Cognitive behavioural therapy led to improvements in depression and substance use, and studies of three family-based therapies reported decreases in substance use. Housing first, a structural intervention, led to improvements in housing stability. Many interventions showed inconsistent results compared to services as usual or other interventions, but often led to improvements over time in both the intervention and comparison group. The equity analysis showed that equity variables were inconsistently measured, but there was data to suggest differential outcomes based upon gender and ethnicity. Conclusions: This review identified a variety of interventions for youth experiencing homelessness. Promising interventions include cognitive behavioural therapy for addressing depression, family-based therapy for substance use outcomes, and housing programs for housing stability. Youth pathways are often unique and thus prevention and treatment may benefit from a tailored and flexible approach.

Individuals who are homeless or vulnerably housed are at an increased risk for mental illness, other morbidities and premature death. Standard case management interventions as well as more intensive models with practitioner support, such as assertive community treatment, critical time interventions, and intensive case management, may improve healthcare navigation and outcomes. However, the definitions of these models as well as the fidelity and adaptations in real world interventions are highly variable. We conducted a systematic review to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of case management interventions on health and social outcomes for homeless populations. We searched Medline, Embase and 7 other electronic databases for trials on case management or care coordination, from the inception of these databases to July 2019. We sought outcomes on housing stability, mental health, quality of life, substance use, hospitalization, income and employment, and cost-effectiveness. We calculated pooled random effects estimates and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our search identified 13,811 citations; and 56 primary studies met our full inclusion criteria. Standard case management had both limited and short-term effects on substance use and housing outcomes and showed potential to increase hostility and depression. Intensive case management substantially reduced the number of days spent homeless (SMD -0.22 95% CI -0.40 to -0.03), as well as substance and alcohol use. Critical time interventions and assertive community treatment were found to have a protective effect in terms of rehospitalizations and a promising effect on housing stability. Assertive community treatment was found to be cost-effective compared to standard case management. Case management approaches were found to improve some if not all of the health and social outcomes that were examined in this study. The important factors were likely delivery intensity, the number and type of caseloads, hospital versus community programs and varying levels of participant needs. More research is needed to fully understand how to continue to obtain the increased benefits inherent in intensive case management, even in community settings where feasibility considerations lead to larger caseloads and less-intensive follow-up.

With the ever-widening gap between what is technologically possible and services available, jurisdictions around the world are faced with complex decisions regarding the introduction and expansion of genetic screening programs. A series of literature reviews and consultations with stakeholders and experts led to the development of a decision support guide for genetic screening policy-making. This involved establishing a preliminary list of core criteria synthesized from the growing literature on genetic screening, which was then transformed through a series of consultations into a more elaborate decision guide. Although certain perennial challenges in genetic screening policy-making remain, the decision support guide aims to promote a fair and evidence-informed process that makes explicit the ethical dilemmas often inherent to such policy decisions.

Even the highest quality evidence will have little impact unless it is incorporated into decision-making for health. It is therefore critical to overcome the many barriers to using evidence in decision-making, including (1) missing the window of opportunity, (2) knowledge gaps and uncertainty, (3) controversy, irrelevant and conflicting evidence, as well as (4) vested interests and conflicts of interest. While this is certainly not a comprehensive list, it covers a number of main themes discussed in the knowledge translation literature on this topic, and better understanding these barriers can help readers of the evidence to be more savvy knowledge users and help researchers overcome challenges to getting their evidence into practice. Thus, the first step in being able to use research evidence for improving population health is ensuring that the evidence is available at the right time and in the right format and language so that knowledge users can take the evidence into consideration alongside a multitude of other factors that also influence decision-making. The sheer volume of scientific publications makes it difficult to find the evidence that can actually help inform decisions for health. Policymakers, especially in low- and middle-income countries, require context-specific evidence to ensure local relevance. Knowledge synthesis and dissemination of policy-relevant local evidence is important, but it is still not enough. There are times when the interpretation of the evidence leads to various controversies and disagreements, which act as barriers to the uptake of evidence. Research evidence can also be influenced and misused for various aims and agendas. It is therefore important to ensure that any new evidence comes from reliable sources and is interpreted in light of the overall body of scientific literature. It is not enough to simply produce evidence, nor even to synthesize and package evidence into a more user-friendly format. Particularly at the policy level, political savvy is also needed to ensure that vested interests do not undermine decisions that can impact the health of individuals and populations.