TY - JOUR T1 - Should we screen for poverty in primary care? JF - British Journal of General Practice JO - Br J Gen Pract SP - 468 LP - 469 DO - 10.3399/bjgp21X717317 VL - 71 IS - 711 AU - Dipesh P Gopal AU - Sarah Beardon AU - Martin Caraher AU - Charlotte Woodhead AU - Stephanie JC Taylor Y1 - 2021/10/01 UR - http://bjgp.org/content/71/711/468.abstract N2 - This pandemic oversees the worst economic decline for almost 300 years,1 which will widen existing health inequalities.2 This has resulted in rising poverty levels and increasing numbers of people claiming state benefits, with probable knock-on effects for food insecurity and fuel poverty. This is on top of ongoing cuts to public services and welfare provisions, as well as rising unemployment. Some patient groups are more likely to suffer economic hardship, for example, those living with and beyond cancer are likely to experience ‘financial toxicity’ — the economic effects of cancer treatment.Since primary care is community facing, should primary care practitioners screen for poverty during routine interactions with patients? If so, does poverty screening fulfil ‘screening criteria’? An updated version3 of Wilson and Jungner’s 1968 classic screening criteria provides a basis for debate about screening for poverty in primary care (Box 1). The screening programme should respond to a recognised need.The objectives of screening should be defined at the outset.There should be a defined target population.There should be scientific evidence of screening programme effectiveness.The programme should integrate education, testing, clinical services, and programme management.There should be quality assurance, with mechanisms to minimise potential risks of screening.The programme should ensure informed choice, confidentiality, and respect for autonomy.The programme should promote equity and access to screening for the entire target population.Programme evaluation should be planned from the outset.The overall benefits of screening should outweigh the harm.Box 1. Andermann and colleagues’ updated screening criteria for the genomic age3There is no doubt that there is a tangible need at a local and population level … ER -