Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence

被引:438
|
作者
Bickerdike, Liz [1 ]
Booth, Alison [2 ]
Wilson, Paul M. [3 ]
Farley, Kate [4 ]
Wright, Kath [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ York, Ctr Reviews & Disseminat, York, N Yorkshire, England
[2] Univ York, York Trials Unit, York, N Yorkshire, England
[3] Univ Manchester, Alliance Manchester Business Sch, Manchester, Lancs, England
[4] Univ Leeds, Sch Healthcare, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England
来源
BMJ OPEN | 2017年 / 7卷 / 04期
关键词
PRIMARY-CARE; HEALTH; VOLUNTARY; SERVICES;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013384
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives: Social prescribing is a way of linking patients in primary care with sources of support within the community to help improve their health and wellbeing. Social prescribing programmes are being widely promoted and adopted in the UK National Health Service and so we conducted a systematic review to assess the evidence for their effectiveness. Setting/data sources: Nine databases were searched from 2000 to January 2016 for studies conducted in the UK. Relevant reports and guidelines, websites and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies. All the searches were restricted to English language only. Participants: Systematic reviews and any published evaluation of programmes where patient referral was made from a primary care setting to a link worker or facilitator of social prescribing were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias for included studies was undertaken independently by two reviewers and a narrative synthesis was performed. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Primary outcomes of interest were any measures of health and well-being and/or usage of health services. Results: We included a total of 15 evaluations of social prescribing programmes. Most were small scale and limited by poor design and reporting. All were rated as a having a high risk of bias. Common design issues included a lack of comparative controls, short follow-up durations, a lack of standardised and validated measuring tools, missing data and a failure to consider potential confounding factors. Despite clear methodological shortcomings, most evaluations presented positive conclusions. Conclusions: Social prescribing is being widely advocated and implemented but current evidence fails to provide sufficient detail to judge either success or value for money. If social prescribing is to realise its potential, future evaluations must be comparative by design and consider when, by whom, for whom, how well and at what cost.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 42 条
  • [31] Psychological and physiological health outcomes of virtual reality-based mindfulness interventions: A systematic review and evidence mapping of empirical studies
    Wieczorek, Alissa
    Schrank, Florian
    Renner, Karl-Heinz
    Wagner, Matthias
    DIGITAL HEALTH, 2024, 10
  • [32] Is it possible for people with severe mental illness to sit less and move more? A systematic review of interventions to increase physical activity or reduce sedentary behaviour
    Ashdown-Franks, Garcia
    Williams, Julie
    Vancampfort, Davy
    Firth, Joseph
    Schuch, Felipe
    Hubbard, Kathryn
    Craig, Tom
    Gaughran, Fiona
    Stubbs, Brendon
    SCHIZOPHRENIA RESEARCH, 2018, 202 : 3 - 16
  • [33] Variations in older people's emergency care use by social care setting: a systematic review of international evidence
    Brotherhood, Kelly
    Searle, Ben
    Spiers, Gemma Frances
    Caiado, Camila
    Hanratty, Barbara
    BRITISH MEDICAL BULLETIN, 2024, 149 (01) : 32 - 44
  • [34] Social prescribing for people living with dementia (PLWD) and their carers: what works, for whom, under what circumstances and why - protocol for a complex intervention systematic review
    Marshall, Jessica
    Papavasiliou, Evie
    Fox, Chris
    Hawkes, Matthew
    Irvine, Anne
    Moniz-Cook, Esme
    Pick, Aimee
    Polley, Marie J.
    Reeve, Joanne
    Robinson, Louise
    Rook, George
    Sadler, Euan
    Wolverson, Emma
    Walker, Sarah
    Cross, Jane L.
    BMJ OPEN, 2024, 14 (04):
  • [35] Social values and health systems in health policy and systems research: a mixed-method systematic review and evidence map
    Whyle, Eleanor
    Olivier, Jill
    HEALTH POLICY AND PLANNING, 2020, 35 (06) : 735 - 751
  • [36] Factors influencing the realisation of the social impact of urban nature in inner-city environments: A systematic review of complex evidence
    Juntti, Meri
    Ozsezer-Kurnuc, Sevda
    ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2023, 211
  • [37] Community-based social interventions for people with severe mental illness: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of recent evidence
    Killaspy, Helen
    Harvey, Carol
    Brasier, Catherine
    Brophy, Lisa
    Ennals, Priscilla
    Fletcher, Justine
    Hamilton, Bridget
    WORLD PSYCHIATRY, 2022, 21 (01) : 96 - 123
  • [38] Limited evidence that emergency department care is more costly than other outpatient settings for low-acuity conditions: a systematic review
    Stephen, Gaibrie
    Burton, Justin
    Detsky, Allan S. S.
    Ivers, Noah
    Berthelot, Simon
    Atzema, Clare L. L.
    Orkin, Aaron M. M.
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2023, 25 (05) : 387 - 393
  • [39] What is the evidence base for integrating health and environmental approaches in the school context to nurture healthier and more environmentally aware young people? A systematic scoping review of global evidence
    Proctor, Rachel
    Guell, Cornelia
    Wyatt, Katrina
    Williams, Andrew James
    HEALTH & PLACE, 2020, 64
  • [40] Limited evidence that emergency department care is more costly than other outpatient settings for low-acuity conditions: a systematic review
    Gaibrie Stephen
    Justin Burton
    Allan S. Detsky
    Noah Ivers
    Simon Berthelot
    Clare L. Atzema
    Aaron M. Orkin
    Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2023, 25 : 387 - 393