Neighborhoods, as built and social environments, have significant implications for mental health. Children raised in high-poverty neighborhoods, who are disproportionately Black, Indigenous, and people of color, have a greater risk of adverse life outcomes. Neighborhood gentrification is also salient when examining mental health outcomes as neighborhood economic contexts shift around a child. This review scopes, describes, synthesizes, and critiques the existing literature on the relationship between neighborhood poverty/gentrification and mood disorder symptoms among children ages 3–17 in the United States (U.S.). Given the history of structural racism in the creation of U.S. neighborhoods, inclusion criteria required that study samples be racially diverse. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for scoping reviews, seven databases and grey literature were searched; 17 studies were included (total n = 122,089). Fourteen studies found significant associations between neighborhood poverty/gentrification and child depression. Three longitudinal studies found significant results suggesting that childhood neighborhood poverty/gentrification may have a lagged effect, with depression emerging later in life. Neighborhood poverty and gentrification require further examination as social determinants of mental health. Researchers should examine neighborhood poverty and gentrification as social determinants of mental health. Policies that reduce neighborhood economic disparities are needed across the U.S.

Introduction: Social workers play a critical role in healthcare settings by addressing both medical and nonmedical needs. Trained in human behavior and social environments, they are best suited to screen for social determinants of health (SDOH) and connect patients with resources paving the way for optimal health and well-being. Methods: This narrative review synthesizes the existing literature on SDOH screening practices within healthcare settings, emphasizing the role of social workers. A systematic search was conducted across multiple databases. A total of 26 studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed using a qualitative narrative synthesis approach. Results: This review reveals variability in SDOH screening domains, tools, and implementation strategies across healthcare settings. Facilitators and barriers to implementation were identified, including workflow integration, interprofessional collaboration, and contextual readiness. Social workers emerged as key professionals in addressing health-related social risks, leveraging their expertise in patient engagement, assessment, and system navigation. We further introduced the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework to suggest the effective integration of SDOH screenings, emphasizing innovation, recipient engagement, contextual readiness, and facilitation. Conclusion: The effective integration of SDOH screenings requires structured workflows, interdisciplinary collaboration, and policy support. The review provides practice models of workflows for SDOH screenings and implications within two different healthcare settings: hospitals and outpatient clinics, offering insights into best practices and areas for future research. Strengthening the role of social workers in SDOH screenings can improve patient outcomes and promote health equity.

Background: Healthy Texas Women (HTW) is a fee-for-service family planning program that excludes affiliates of abortion providers. The HTW network includes providers who participate in Title X or the state Family Planning Program (FPP) and primary care providers without additional family planning funding (HTW-only). The objective of this study is to compare client volume and use of evidence-based practices among HTW providers. Methods: Client volume was determined from administrative data on unduplicated HTW clients served in fiscal year (FY) 2017. A sample of 114 HTW providers, stratified by region, completed a 2018 survey about contraceptive methods offered, adherence to evidence-based contraceptive provision, barriers to offering IUDs and implants, and counseling/referrals for pregnant patients. Differences by funding source were assessed using t-tests and chi-square tests. Results: Although HTW-only providers served 58% of HTW clients, most (72%) saw < 50 clients in FY2017. Only 5% of HTW providers received Title X or FPP funding, but 46% served ≥ 500 HTW clients. HTW-only providers were less likely than Title X providers to offer hormonal IUDs (70% vs. 92%) and implants (66% vs 96%); offer same-day placement of IUDs (21% vs 79%) and implants (21% vs 83%); and allow patients to delay cervical cancer screening when initiating contraception (58% vs 83%; all p < 0.05). There were few provider-level differences in counseling/referrals for unplanned pregnancy (p > 0.05). Conclusions: HTW-only providers served fewer clients and were less likely to follow evidence-based practices. Program modifications that strengthen the provider network and quality of care are needed to support family planning services for low-income Texans.