OBJECTIVES: To understand how health-related social needs (HRSN) data are collected at US hospitals and implications for use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using 2023 nationally representative survey data on US hospitals (N = 2775), we described hospitals' routine and structured collection and use of HRSN data and examined the relationship between methods of data collection and specific uses. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify characteristics associated with data collection and use and understand how methods of data collection relate to use. RESULTS: In 2023, 88% of hospitals collected HRSN data (64% routinely, 72% structured). While hospitals commonly used data for internal purposes (eg, discharge planning, 79%), those that collected data routinely and in a structured format (58%) used data for purposes involving coordination or exchange with other organizations (eg, making referrals, 74%) at higher rates than hospitals that collected data but not routinely or in a non-structured format (eg, 93% vs 67% for referrals, P< .05). In multivariate regression, routine and structured data collection was positively associated with all uses of data examined. Hospital location, ownership, system-affiliation, value-based care participation, and critical access designation were associated with HRSN data collection, but only system-affiliation was consistently (positively) associated with use. DISCUSSION: While most hospitals screen for social needs, fewer collect data routinely and in a structured format that would facilitate downstream use. Routine and structured data collection was associated with greater use, particularly for secondary purposes. CONCLUSION: Routine and structured screening may result in more actionable data that facilitates use for various purposes that support patient care and improve community and population health, indicating the importance of continuing efforts to increase routine screening and standardize HRSN data collection.

OBJECTIVES: In 2023, AMIA's Inclusive Language and Context Style Guidelines (the "Guidelines") were approved by the Board of Directors and made a publicly available resource. This work began in 2021 through AMIA's DEI Task Force and subsequent DEI Committee; many members provided input, feedback, and time to create the Guidelines. In this paper, the authors provide a transparent account of the origin, development, contents, and dissemination of the Guidelines and share plans for their future development and use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our approach to drafting, refining, and distributing the Guidelines included consulting existing language guides, AMIA member reviews, external expert reviews, webinars, and workshops. Through an iterative approach to drafting and refining the Guidelines, the authors consulted relevant language guidelines and many experts throughout and beyond the AMIA community. RESULTS: The Inclusive Language Context Guidelines were formally approved by the AMIA Board of Directors on February 15, 2023. The Guidelines included four principles to be considered in scientific communications: Plurality, Precision, Transparency, and Destigmatization. DISCUSSION: A moment of vulnerability where an AMIA member raised concerns about the use of harmful language during a presentation resulted in the creation of a principled approach to support inclusive language within biomedical and health informatics communications. We envision that the Guidelines will support health equity by challenging dominant public narratives around health, fostering stronger interdisciplinary collaboration and critical thinking about the impact of language, and creating a more welcoming environment for the broader AMIA community. This work could not have been completed without the support of many AMIA members and other researchers in biomedical and health informatics. The Guidelines are a living document that will continue to be updated with input and feedback from the AMIA community into the future.

OBJECTIVES: National attention has focused on increasing clinicians' responsiveness to the social determinants of health, for example, food security. A key step toward designing responsive interventions includes ensuring that information about patients' social circumstances is captured in the electronic health record (EHR). While prior work has assessed levels of EHR "social risk" documentation, the extent to which documentation represents the true prevalence of social risk is unknown. While no gold standard exists to definitively characterize social risks in clinical populations, here we used the best available proxy: social risks reported by patient survey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared survey results to respondents' EHR social risk documentation (clinical free-text notes and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems [ICD-10] codes). RESULTS: Surveys indicated much higher rates of social risk (8.2%-40.9%) than found in structured (0%-2.0%) or unstructured (0%-0.2%) documentation. DISCUSSION: Ideally, new care standards that include incentives to screen for social risk will increase the use of documentation tools and clinical teams' awareness of and interventions related to social adversity, while balancing potential screening and documentation burden on clinicians and patients. CONCLUSION: EHR documentation of social risk factors currently underestimates their prevalence.

OBJECTIVE: Electronic health records (EHRs) are increasingly used to capture social determinants of health (SDH) data, though there are few published studies of clinicians' engagement with captured data and whether engagement influences health and healthcare utilization. We compared the relative frequency of clinician engagement with discrete SDH data to the frequency of engagement with other common types of medical history information using data from inpatient hospitalizations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We created measures of data engagement capturing instances of data documentation (data added/updated) or review (review of data that were previously documented) during a hospitalization. We applied these measures to four domains of EHR data, (medical, family, behavioral, and SDH) and explored associations between data engagement and hospital readmission risk. RESULTS: SDH data engagement was associated with lower readmission risk. Yet, there were lower levels of SDH data engagement (8.37% of hospitalizations) than medical (12.48%), behavioral (17.77%), and family (14.42%) history data engagement. In hospitalizations where data were available from prior hospitalizations/outpatient encounters, a larger proportion of hospitalizations had SDH data engagement than other domains (72.60%). DISCUSSION: The goal of SDH data collection is to drive interventions to reduce social risk. Data on when and how clinical teams engage with SDH data should be used to inform informatics initiatives to address health and healthcare disparities. CONCLUSION: Overall levels of SDH data engagement were lower than those of common medical, behavioral, and family history data, suggesting opportunities to enhance clinician SDH data engagement to support social services referrals and quality measurement efforts.

Healthcare organizations are increasing social determinants of health (SDH) screening and documentation in the electronic health record (EHR). Physicians may use SDH data for medical decision-making and to provide referrals to social care resources. Physicians must be aware of these data to use them, however, and little is known about physicians' awareness of EHR-based SDH documentation or documentation capabilities. We therefore leveraged national physician survey data to measure level of awareness and variation by physician, practice, and EHR characteristics to inform practice- and policy-based efforts to drive medical-social care integration. We identify higher levels of social needs documentation awareness among physicians practicing in community health centers, those participating in payment models with social care initiatives, and those aware of other advanced EHR functionalities. Findings indicate that there are opportunities to improve physician education and training around new EHR-based SDH functionalities.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated patient experiences with medication- and test-related cost conversations with healthcare providers to identify their preferences for future informatics tools to facilitate cost-sensitive care decisions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted 18 semistructured interviews with diverse patients (ages 24-81) in a Midwestern health system in the United States. We identified themes through 2 rounds of qualitative coding. RESULTS: Patients believed their providers could help reduce medication-related costs but did not see how providers could influence test-related costs. Patients viewed cost conversations about medications as beneficial when providers could adjust medical recommendations or provide resources. However, cost conversations did not always occur when patients felt they were needed. Consequently, patients faced a "cascade of work" to address affordability challenges. To prevent this, collaborative informatics tools could facilitate cost conversations and shared decision-making by providing information about a patient's financial constraints, enabling comparisons of medication/testing options, and addressing transportation logistics to facilitate patient follow-through. DISCUSSION: Like providers, patients want informatics tools that address patient out-of-pocket costs. They want to discuss healthcare costs to reduce the frequency of unaffordable costs and obtain proactive assistance. Informatics interventions could minimize the cascade of patient work through shared decision-making and preventative actions. Such tools might integrate information about efficacy, costs, and side effects to support decisions, present patient decision aids, facilitate coordination among healthcare units, and eventually improve patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: To prevent a burdensome cascade of work for patients, informatics tools could be designed to support cost conversations and decisions between patients and providers.

OBJECTIVE: Initiatives to reduce neighborhood-based health disparities require access to meaningful, timely, and local information regarding health behavior and its determinants. We examined the validity of Twitter as a source of information for neighborhood-level analysis of dietary choices and attitudes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the "healthiness" quotient and sentiment in food-related tweets at the census tract level, and associated them with neighborhood characteristics and health outcomes. We analyzed keywords driving the differences in food healthiness between the most and least-affluent tracts, and qualitatively analyzed contents of a random sample of tweets. RESULTS: Significant, albeit weak, correlations existed between healthiness and sentiment in food-related tweets and tract-level measures of affluence, disadvantage, race, age, U.S. density, and mortality from conditions associated with obesity. Analyses of keywords driving the differences in food healthiness revealed foods high in saturated fat (eg, pizza, bacon, fries) were mentioned more frequently in less-affluent tracts. Food-related discussion referred to activities (eating, drinking, cooking), locations where food was consumed, and positive (affection, cravings, enjoyment) and negative attitudes (dislike, personal struggles, complaints). DISCUSSION: Tweet-based healthiness scores largely correlated with offline phenomena in the expected directions. Social media offer less resource-intensive data collection methods than traditional surveys do. Twitter may assist in informing local health programs that focus on drivers of food consumption and could inform interventions focused on attitudes and the food environment. CONCLUSIONS: Twitter provided weak but significant signals concerning food-related behavior and attitudes at the neighborhood level, suggesting its potential usefulness for informing local health disparity reduction efforts.

OBJECTIVE: The 2018 National NLP Clinical Challenge (2018 n2c2) focused on the task of cohort selection for clinical trials, where participating systems were tasked with analyzing longitudinal patient records to determine if the patients met or did not meet any of the 13 selection criteria. This article describes our participation in this shared task. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We followed a hybrid approach combining pattern-based, knowledge-intensive, and feature weighting techniques. After preprocessing the notes using publicly available natural language processing tools, we developed individual criterion-specific components that relied on collecting knowledge resources relevant for these criteria and pattern-based and weighting approaches to identify "met" and "not met" cases. RESULTS: As part of the 2018 n2c2 challenge, 3 runs were submitted. The overall micro-averaged F1 on the training set was 0.9444. On the test set, the micro-averaged F1 for the 3 submitted runs were 0.9075, 0.9065, and 0.9056. The best run was placed second in the overall challenge and all 3 runs were statistically similar to the top-ranked system. A reimplemented system achieved the best overall F1 of 0.9111 on the test set. DISCUSSION: We highlight the need for a focused resource-intensive effort to address the class imbalance in the cohort selection identification task. CONCLUSION: Our hybrid approach was able to identify all selection criteria with high F1 performance on both training and test sets. Based on our participation in the 2018 n2c2 task, we conclude that there is merit in continuing a focused criterion-specific analysis and developing appropriate knowledge resources to build a quality cohort selection system.