Examining How Social Risk Factors Are Integrated Into Clinical Settings Using Existing Data: A Scoping Review

Positive Review Points:

1.The article presents an innovative approach to integrating social care into clinical settings through the use of geographic information systems (GIS). This method taps into existing data resources and has the potential to efficiently address social risk factors within primary care, offering a novel perspective on enhancing patient care beyond traditional clinical parameters.

2.The scoping literature review method employed by the authors is comprehensive, covering a substantial number of articles. The structured data extraction ensures a systematic and organized approach to understanding the use of GIS in clinical settings for identifying and addressing social risks. The inclusion criteria are clear and focused, enhancing the reliability of the review.

3 The article not only identifies the use of GIS in raising awareness of social risks but also highlights studies that describe interventions. The focus on identifying community resources and aligning clinical services with patients' needs reflects a pragmatic and actionable approach to addressing social determinants of health within the healthcare system.

Negative Review Points

1.
The review acknowledges the scarcity of literature on GIS use to identify and address social risk factors in clinical settings. The small number of eligible studies (18 out of 5,574) may raise concerns about the depth of evidence and the generalizability of findings. This limitation might restrict the broader applicability of GIS in clinical care delivery.

2. The majority of the studies included are descriptive, with a limited number testing interventions. This prevalence of descriptive studies may limit the depth of insights into the effectiveness and practical application of GIS in clinical settings. The article could benefit from more rigorous intervention studies to assess the impact on patient outcomes.

3. The inclusion criteria specifying studies based in the United States might limit the generalizability of findings to a global context. Different healthcare systems and social contexts may influence the use and effectiveness of GIS in addressing social risk factors. A broader geographic scope could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the potential applications of GIS in diverse clinical settings.