Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence
Социальное назначение: меньше риторики и больше реальности. Систематический обзор доказательств
2017-04-01
SCID: 54.1/6tadvwrg
Discuss with AI
link workersprimary carerisk of biassocial prescribingsystematic review
Figures from the paper
Abstract (AI)
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 well-being. 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO Registration: CRD42015023501.
Key Findings
1
A systematic review identified 15 UK evaluations of social prescribing programmes linking primary-care patients with community support through link workers or facilitators.
2
Although most evaluations reported positive conclusions, the evidence was insufficient to determine social prescribing’s effectiveness or value for money.
3
Common limitations included absent comparison groups, short follow-up, nonstandardized outcome measures, missing data, and inadequate consideration of confounding.
4
Future evaluations should use comparative designs and assess when, by whom, for whom, how well, and at what cost social prescribing works.
5
Most evaluations were small-scale and methodologically weak; all were judged to have a high risk of bias.
Research Object
UK social prescribing programmes linking primary care patients to community-based support via link workers or facilitators
Research Subject
The effectiveness, health and well-being outcomes, health-service use, and value for money of social prescribing programmes
Publication Details
Publication Date
2017-04-01
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Open access PDF
Access Type
Author Information
Download PDF
Subscribe to digest