Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32580718›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Applying critical systems thinking to social prescribing: a relational model of stakeholder "buy-in".

Alison Fixsen, Helen Seers, Marie Polley, Jo Robins

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
28.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Understanding How, Why and for Whom Link Work Interventions Promote Access in Community Healthcare Settings in the United Kingdom: A Realist Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alison FixsenUniversity of Westminster, School of Social Sciences (Psychology), 115 New Cavendish Street, London, W1W 6UW, UK. A.Fixsen@westminster.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9449-2784
Helen SeersUniversity of Westminster, School of Social Sciences (Psychology), 115 New Cavendish Street, London, W1W 6UW, UK.
Marie PolleyUniversity of Westminster, School of Social Sciences (Psychology), 115 New Cavendish Street, London, W1W 6UW, UK.
Jo RobinsShropshire Public Health, Shirehall, Abbey Foregate, SY2 6ND, UK.
University of Westminster · GBShropshire Council · GB

Funding

Shropshire Council PONV 006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial prescribing (SP) allows health professionals to refer primary care patients toward health and wellbeing interventions and activities in the local community. Now widely implemented across the UK and adopted in other nations, questions arise concerning the modelling of present and future schemes, including challenges to full engagement encountered by stakeholders, which lie beyond the scope of traditional evaluations. Critical Systems Thinking (CST) allows for holistic analysis of fields where multiple stakeholders hold diverse interests and unequal power.

methodsWe use CST to (a) critically examine a developing rural social prescribing scheme from multiple stakeholder perspectives and (b) present a relational model for local social prescribing schemes. Our fieldwork included 24 in-depth interviews, regular planning meetings with key stakeholders, and discussions with those involved with national and international SP landscaping. A modified grounded theory approach was used for the analysis, and to consider the core elements of social prescribing sustainability.

resultsOur study confirms that local social prescribing schemes must operate with numerous stakeholder interests in mind, seeking to address real life social complexity and offer integrated solutions to multifaceted issues. Three main areas are discussed: holistic vision and boundary judgments; barriers and facilitators; relational issues and "emotional buy in". Problems for staff include selecting suitable clients, feedback and technological issues and funding and evaluation pressures. Barriers for clients include health, transport and expense issues, also lack of prior information and GP involvement. Emotional "buy-in" emerged as essential for all stakeholders, but hard to sustain. Based on our findings we propose a positive relational model comprising shared vision, confidence and commitment; motivation and encouragement, support and wellbeing focus, collaborative relationships, communication and feedback, access to information /resources, learning in and from action, with emotional "buy-in" at its heart.

conclusionThose implementing social prescribing in different localities inevitably face hard choices about what and whom to include. Research on the sustainability of social prescribing remains limited, studies are required to ascertain which "holistic" models of social prescribing work best for which communities, who are the main beneficiaries of these approaches and how "buy-in" is best sustained.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareSystems AnalysisCommunity Health ServicesHumansReferral and ConsultationRural PopulationSocial WelfareState MedicineUnited KingdomCritical systems thinkingPublic healthService evaluationSocial prescribing

Identifiers

PMID32580718
PMCPMC7312116
OpenAlexW3037458051

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.