Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29415720›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2018

Facilitators and barriers of implementing and delivering social prescribing services: a systematic review.

Julia Vera Pescheny, Yannis Pappas, Gurch Randhawa

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 126 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
126citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

126 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Outcomes and instruments used in social prescribing: a modified umbrella review.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2024
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. A Systematic Review of Electronic Community Resource Referral Systems.American journal of preventive medicine · 2023
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Interventions to identify and manage depression delivered by 'nontraditional' providers to community-dwelling older adults: A realist review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

66 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Julia Vera PeschenyInstitute for Health Research, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK. Julia.pescheny@study.beds.ac.uk.
Yannis PappasInstitute for Health Research, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK.
Gurch RandhawaInstitute for Health Research, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial Prescribing is a service in primary care that involves the referral of patients with non-clinical needs to local services and activities provided by the third sector (community, voluntary, and social enterprise sector). Social Prescribing aims to promote partnership working between the health and the social sector to address the wider determinants of health. To date, there is a weak evidence base for Social Prescribing services. The objective of the review was to identify factors that facilitate and hinder the implementation and delivery of SP services based in general practice involving a navigator.

methodsWe searched eleven databases, the grey literature, and the reference lists of relevant studies to identify the barriers and facilitators to the implementation and delivery of Social Prescribing services in June and July 2016. Searches were limited to literature written in English. No date restrictions were applied. Findings were synthesised narratively, employing thematic analysis. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool Version 2011 was used to evaluate the methodological quality of included studies.

resultsEight studies were included in the review. The synthesis identified a range of factors that facilitate and hinder the implementation and delivery of SP services. Facilitators and barriers were related to: the implementation approach, legal agreements, leadership, management and organisation, staff turnover, staff engagement, relationships and communication between partners and stakeholders, characteristics of general practices, and the local infrastructure. The quality of most included studies was poor and the review identified a lack of published literature on factors that facilitate and hinder the implementation and delivery of Social Prescribing services.

conclusionThe review identified a range of factors that facilitate and hinder the implementation and delivery of Social Prescribing services. Findings of this review provide an insight for commissioners, managers, and providers to guide the implementation and delivery of future Social Prescribing services. More high quality research and transparent reporting of findings is needed in this field.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareHealth Services AccessibilityHumansPopulation GroupsPractice Patterns, Physicians'Program EvaluationReferral and ConsultationSocial Determinants of HealthCommunity careCommunity referralsDeliveryImplementationSocial prescription

Identifiers

PMID29415720
PMCPMC5803993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.