Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32164681›Full record

ReviewBMC medicine2020

Supporting social prescribing in primary care by linking people to local assets: a realist review.

Stephanie Tierney, Geoff Wong, Nia Roberts, Anne-Marie Boylan, Sophie Park, Ruth Abrams, Joanne Reeve, Veronika Williams, Kamal R Mahtani

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 118 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
118citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

118 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. 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
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

58 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

9 authors.

Stephanie TierneyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. stephanie.tierney@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2155-2440
Geoff WongNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nia RobertsBodleian Health Care Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Anne-Marie BoylanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sophie ParkDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Ruth AbramsDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Joanne ReeveHull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK.
Veronika WilliamsSchool of Nursing, Nipissing University, North Bay, Canada.
Kamal R MahtaniNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

NIHR School for Primary Care Research 390
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial prescribing is a way of addressing the 'non-medical' needs (e.g. loneliness, debt, housing problems) that can affect people's health and well-being. Connector schemes (e.g. delivered by care navigators or link workers) have become a key component to social prescribing's delivery. Those in this role support patients by either (a) signposting them to relevant local assets (e.g. groups, organisations, charities, activities, events) or (b) taking time to assist them in identifying and prioritising their 'non-medical' needs and connecting them to relevant local assets. To understand how such connector schemes work, for whom, why and in what circumstances, we conducted a realist review.

methodA search of electronic databases was supplemented with Google alerts and reference checking to locate grey literature. In addition, we sent a Freedom of Information request to all Clinical Commissioning Groups in England to identify any further evaluations of social prescribing connector schemes. Included studies were from the UK and focused on connector schemes for adult patients (18+ years) related to primary care.

resultsOur searches resulted in 118 included documents, from which data were extracted to produce context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs). These CMOCs underpinned our emerging programme theory that centred on the essential role of 'buy-in' and connections. This was refined further by turning to existing theories on (a) social capital and (b) patient activation.

conclusionOur realist review highlights how connector roles, especially link workers, represent a vehicle for accruing social capital (e.g. trust, sense of belonging, practical support). We propose that this then gives patients the confidence, motivation, connections, knowledge and skills to manage their own well-being, thereby reducing their reliance on GPs. We also emphasise within the programme theory situations that could result in unintended consequences (e.g. increased demand on GPs).

Indexed as

Disease ManagementHumansPrescriptionsPrimary Health CareCare navigatorsEvidence synthesisLink workersRealist reviewSocial capitalSocial prescribing

Identifiers

PMID32164681
PMCPMC7068902

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.