Social workers play an integral role in hospitals, particularly as it relates to improving patient outcomes. This scoping review was conducted to explore the impact of social work interventions in hospital settings on healthcare utilization. Research literature was identified using the following search engines: PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, SocINDEX & MEDLINE. The initial search was conducted in May 2019, and an updated search was conducted in April 2021. Search results identified 2633 references and 110 articles met criteria for full-text review. Eighteen articles were included in the final review. Social work interventions include transitional care (56%), care coordination (22%), behavioral health (17%) and case management (5%). Significant improvements to readmission, mortality and utilizations rates are reported in over 80% of the studies, however the vast majority are non-randomized quantitative studies. More rigorous studies are needed to expand the literature and further evaluate the effectiveness of social work interventions in hospital settings.

Objective: Financial toxicity is of increasing concern in the United States. The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) is a validated measure; however, it has not been widely utilized among low-income patients and may not fully capture financial toxicity in this population. Furthermore, the relationships between financial toxicity, quality of life (QOL), and patient well-being are poorly understood. We describe the experience of financial toxicity among low-income adults receiving cancer care. We hypothesized that higher financial toxicity would be associated with less income and lower quality of life. Qualitative interviews focused on the financial impact of cancer treatment.Method: This study was conducted at a cancer clinic in Central Texas. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected in Fall and Spring 2018, respectively. The quantitative sample (N = 115) was dichotomized by annual income (<$15,000 vs. >$15,000). Outcomes included financial toxicity (COST), quality of life (FACT-G), and patient well-being (PROMIS measures: Anxiety, Depression, Fatigue, Pain Interference, and Physical Function). Associations between quality of life, patient well-being, and financial toxicity were evaluated using linear regression. Sequential qualitative interviews were conducted with a subsample of 12 participants.Results: Patients with <$15k had significantly lower levels of QOL and patient well-being such as depression and anxiety compared to patients with >$15k across multiple measures. A multivariate linear regression found QOL (Β = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.05, 0.29, p = 0.008) and insurance status (Β = −3.79, 95% CI = −7.42, −0.16, p = 0.04), but not income, were significantly associated with financial toxicity. Three qualitative themes regarding patient's access to cancer care were identified: obtaining healthcare coverage, maintaining financial stability, and receiving social support.Significance of results: Low-income patients with cancer face unique access barriers and are at risk for forgoing treatment or increased symptom burdens. Comprehensive assessment and financial navigation may improve access to care, symptom management, and reduce strain on social support systems.

Community health worker (CHW) and social worker (SW) collaboration is crucial to illness prevention and intervention, yet systems often engage the 2 workforces in silos and miss opportunities for cross-sector alignment. In 2021, a national workgroup of over 2 dozen CHWs, SWs, and public health experts convened to improve CHW/SW collaboration and integration across the United States. The workgroup developed a conceptual framework that describes structural, systemic, and organizational factors that influence CHW/SW collaboration. Best practices include standardized training, delineated roles and scopes of practice, clear workflows, regular communication, a shared system for documentation, and ongoing support or supervision.

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.

Gender has been identified as a social determinant of health, particularly as it relates to healthcare access for women of color. Yet, few analyses focus on the unique barriers that impact Latinx women’s access to healthcare, which demonstrates a significant gap in the literature given the heterogeneity of the Latinx population. The purpose of this study is to (1) describe how sociodemographic characteristics impact access to healthcare for Latinx women and (2) examine whether intersecting factors, particularly nativity and nationality, influence barriers to healthcare for Latinx women in the United States (US). An outcome variable called ‘any barriers to care’ was created based on four healthcare access variables: lacking a usual source of care and delayed care (medical, dental and prescription). Data were from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2005–2015). The sample included Latinx women between ages 18 and 74 (N = 27,162), cross-classified by nationality and nativity. Control variables included language, age, marital status, education, income, and insurance status. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess nativity and nationality as a predictor of any barriers to care. 37% of the sample experienced at least one barrier to care. Initially, nativity status was not a predictor of having a barrier to care. However, in adjusted models with cross-classified nativity and nationality variables, Mexican (US- and foreign-born), Cuban (US- and foreign-born) and Central/South American women (foreign-born only) had higher odds of having any barriers to care compared to continental US-born Puerto Rican women. Latinx women experience barriers to healthcare, yet the prevalence rates vary widely depending on nationality and nativity. It is important to recognize the heterogeneity that exists within the Latinx community and address the underlying causes for limited healthcare access such as immigration policy.