Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30782761›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Evaluating the impact of a community-based social prescribing intervention on people with type 2 diabetes in North East England: mixed-methods study protocol.

Suzanne Moffatt, John Wildman, Tessa M Pollard, Linda Penn, Nicola O'Brien, Mark S Pearce, Josephine M Wildman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. A Qualitative Exploration of the Role of Culturally Relevant Social Prescribing in Supporting Pakistani Carers Living in the UK.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  5. Applying an equity lens to social prescribing.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Implementation and impact of a social prescribing intervention: an ethnographic exploration.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. "SSM. Qualitative research in health · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

Suzanne MoffattInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8553-249X
John WildmanBusiness School, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Tessa M PollardDepartment of Anthropology, Durham University, Durham, UK.
Linda PennInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Nicola O'BrienInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Mark S PearceInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Josephine M WildmanInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSocial prescribing enables healthcare professionals to use voluntary and community sector resources to improve support for people with long-term conditions. It is widely promoted in the UK as a way to address complex health, psychological and social issues presented in primary care, yet there is insufficient evidence of effectiveness or value for money. This study aims to evaluate the impact and costs of a link-worker social prescribing intervention on the health and healthcare use of adults aged 40-74 with type 2 diabetes, living in a multi-ethnic area of high socioeconomic deprivation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Mixed-methods approach combining (1) quantitative quasi-experimental methods to evaluate the effects of social prescribing on health and healthcare use and cost-effectiveness analysis and (2) qualitative ethnographic methods to observe how patients engage with social prescribing. Quantitative data comprise Secondary Uses Service data and Quality Outcomes Framework data. The primary outcome is glycated haemoglobin, and secondary outcomes are secondary care use, systolic blood pressure, weight/body mass index, cholesterol and smoking status; these data will be analysed longitudinally over 3 years using four different control conditions to estimate a range of treatment effects. The ranges where the intervention is cost-effective will be identified from the perspective of the healthcare provider. Qualitative data comprise participant observation and interviews with purposively sampled service users, and focus groups with link-workers (intervention providers). Analysis will involve identification of themes and synthesising and theorising the data. Finally, a coding matrix will identify convergence and divergence among all study components. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: UK NHS Integrated Research Approval System Ethics approved the quantitative research (Reference no. 18/LO/0631). Durham University Research Ethics Committee approved the qualitative research. The authors will publish the findings in peer-reviewed journals and disseminate to practitioners, service users and commissioners via a number of channels including professional and patient networks, conferences and social media. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals.

Indexed as

PrescriptionsProgram EvaluationSocial SupportSocial WelfareAdultAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2EnglandFocus GroupsHumansMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchResearch Designmixed methodsprimary carepublic healthsocial prescribing

Identifiers

PMID30782761
PMCPMC6340458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.