Systematic review of social prescribing and older adults: where to from here?

被引:32
作者
Percival, Amanda [1 ]
Newton, Christie [1 ]
Mulligan, Kate [2 ]
Petrella, Robert J. [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Ashe, Maureen C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ British Columbia, Dept Family Practice, Vancouver, BC, Canada
[2] Univ Toronto, Dalla Lana Sch Publ Hlth, Toronto, ON, Canada
[3] Western Univ, Dept Family Med, London, ON, Canada
[4] Western Univ, Sch Kinesiol, London, ON, Canada
关键词
PHYSICAL-ACTIVITY; GENERAL-PRACTICE; BEHAVIOR-CHANGE; INTERVENTIONS; PRESCRIPTION; METAANALYSIS; LONELINESS; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1136/fmch-2022-001829
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Objective Social prescribing is a person-centred model of care with emphases on lessening the impact of unmet social needs, supporting the delivery of personalised care, and reducing non-medical resource use in the primary care setting. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesise the effect of social prescribing for older adults within primary care. Design We followed standard systematic review guidelines, including protocol registration, screening studies (title/abstract and full text) and assessing the study quality. Eligibility and information sources We searched multiple online databases for studies that included older adults 60+ years (group mean age), an intervention defined and called social prescribing (or social prescription) via health provider referrals to non-medical services, and quantitative physical and psychosocial outcomes and/or health resource use. We included experimental and observational studies from all years and languages and conducted a narrative synthesis. The date of the last search was 24 March 2022. Results We screened 406 citations (after removing duplicates) and included seven studies. All studies except one were before-after design without a control group, and all except one study was conducted in the UK. Studies included 12-159 participants (baseline), there were more women than men, the group mean (SD) age was 76.1 (4.0) years and data collection (baseline to final) occurred on average 19.4 (14.0) weeks apart. Social prescribing referrals came from health and social providers. Studies had considerable risk of bias, programme implementation details were missing, and for studies that reported data (n=6) on average only 66% of participants completed studies (per-protocol). There were some positive effects of social prescribing on physical and psychosocial outcomes (eg, social participation, well-being). Findings varied for health resource use. These results may change with new evidence. Conclusions There were few peer-reviewed studies available for social prescribing and older adults. Next steps for social prescribing should include co-creating initiatives with providers, older people and communities to identify meaningful outcomes, and feasible and robust methods for uptake of the prescription and community programmes. This should be considered in advance or in parallel with determining its effectiveness for meaningful outcomes at multiple levels (person, provider and programme).
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 64 条
[1]   Social factors in frequent callers: a description of isolation, poverty and quality of life in those calling emergency medical services frequently [J].
Agarwal, Gina ;
Lee, Janice ;
McLeod, Brent ;
Mahmuda, Sabnam ;
Howard, Michelle ;
Cockrell, Krista ;
Angeles, Ricardo .
BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 2019, 19 (1)
[2]   Social Prescribing for Individuals Living with Mental Illness in an Australian Community Setting: A Pilot Study [J].
Aggar, Christina ;
Thomas, Tamsin ;
Gordon, Christopher ;
Bloomfield, Jacqueline ;
Baker, James .
COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH JOURNAL, 2021, 57 (01) :189-195
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2022, SOCIAL DETERMINANTS
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2019, The NHS Long Term Plan
[5]  
BC Parks Foundation, 2022, PARX PRESCR NAT
[6]   Using self- determination theory to understand the social prescribing process: a qualitative study [J].
Bhatti, Sara ;
Rayner, Jennifer ;
Pinto, Andrew ;
Mulligan, Kate ;
Cole, Donald C. .
BJGP OPEN, 2021, 5 (02) :1-10
[7]   Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence [J].
Bickerdike, Liz ;
Booth, Alison ;
Wilson, Paul M. ;
Farley, Kate ;
Wright, Kath .
BMJ OPEN, 2017, 7 (04)
[8]   What does the literature mean by social prescribing? A critical review using discourse analysis [J].
Calderon-Larranaga, Sara ;
Greenhalgh, Trish ;
Finer, Sarah ;
Clinch, Megan .
SOCIOLOGY OF HEALTH & ILLNESS, 2022, 44 (4-5) :848-868
[9]   Tensions and opportunities in social prescribing. Developing a framework to facilitate its implementation and evaluation in primary care: a realist review [J].
Calderon-Larranaga, Sara ;
Milner, Yasmin ;
Clinch, Megan ;
Greenhalgh, Trisha ;
Finer, Sarah .
BJGP OPEN, 2021, 5 (03) :1-13
[10]   Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline [J].
Campbell, Mhairi ;
McKenzie, Joanne E. ;
Sowden, Amanda ;
Katikireddi, Srinivasa Vittal ;
Brennan, Sue E. ;
Ellis, Simon ;
Hartmann-Boyce, Jamie ;
Ryan, Rebecca ;
Shepperd, Sasha ;
Thomas, James ;
Welch, Vivian ;
Thomson, Hilary .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2020, 368