Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31502314›Full record

ReviewHealth & social care in the community2020

What approaches to social prescribing work, for whom, and in what circumstances? A realist review.

Kerryn Husk, Kelly Blockley, Rebecca Lovell, Alison Bethel, Iain Lang, Richard Byng, Ruth Garside

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Health & social care in the community, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 202 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
202citing papers in PubMed, 16 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

202 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Can Social Prescribing Foster Individual and Community Well-Being? A Systematic Review of the Evidence.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

142 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

7 authors.

Kerryn HuskNIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC), Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5674-8673
Kelly BlockleyNIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC), College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Rebecca LovellEuropean Centre for Environment and Human Health, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Alison BethelNIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC), College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Iain LangNIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC), College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Richard ByngNIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC), Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Ruth GarsideEuropean Centre for Environment and Human Health, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of non-medical referral, community referral or social prescribing interventions has been proposed as a cost-effective alternative to help those with long-term conditions manage their illness and improve health and well-being. However, the evidence base for social prescribing currently lags considerably behind practice. In this paper, we explore what is known about whether different methods of social prescribing referral and supported uptake do (or do not) work. Supported by an Expert Advisory Group, we conducted a realist review in two phases. The first identified evidence specifically relating to social prescribing in order to develop programme theories in the form of 'if-then' statements, articulating how social prescribing models are expected to work. In the second phase, we aimed to clarify these processes and include broader evidence to better explain the proposed mechanisms. The first phase resulted in 109 studies contributing to the synthesis, and the second phase 34. We generated 40 statements relating to organising principles of how the referral takes place (Enrolment), is accepted (Engagement), and completing an activity (Adherence). Six of these statements were prioritised using web-based nominal group technique by our Expert Group. Studies indicate that patients are more likely to enrol if they believe the social prescription will be of benefit, the referral is presented in an acceptable way that matches their needs and expectations, and concerns elicited and addressed appropriately by the referrer. Patients are more likely to engage if the activity is both accessible and transit to the first session supported. Adherence to activity programmes can be impacted through having an activity leader who is skilled and knowledgeable or through changes in the patient's conditions or symptoms. However, the evidence base is not sufficiently developed methodologically for us to make any general inferences about effectiveness of particular models or approaches.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthSocial ParticipationHumansReferral and ConsultationSocial SupportSocial Workhealth services researchprimary caresocial and health services

Identifiers

PMID31502314
PMCPMC7027770

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.