Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32948564›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Use and impact of social prescribing: a mixed-methods feasibility study protocol.

Anant Jani, Harshana Liyanage, Uy Hoang, Lucy Moore, Filipa Ferreira, Ivelina Yonova, Victoria Tzortziou Brown, Simon de Lusignan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. 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
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Patient Activation Measure (PAM) and the pandemic: Predictors of patient activation among Australian health consumers during the COVID-19 pandemic.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

8 authors.

Anant JaniOxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7046-6768
Harshana LiyanageNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Uy HoangNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Lucy MooreNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Filipa FerreiraNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Ivelina YonovaNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Victoria Tzortziou BrownRoyal College of General Practitioners, London, UK.
Simon de LusignanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK simon.delusignan@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8553-2641

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSocial prescribing aims to address social determinants of health, which account for 80%-90% of health outcomes, but the evidence base behind it is limited due to a lack of data linkingsocial prescribing activity and outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The objective of the quantitative component of this feasibility studyisto identify the characteristics of individuals who receive social prescriptions and describe the use and estimate the impact of social prescribing; the latter will be done on a homeless subgroup. We will use the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) primary care sentinel network, whose general practicescover a population of over 4 000 000 patients. Social prescribing data will be extracted onall recorded patients for 5 years up to 31 January 2020. The objective for the qualitative component of the study isto explore approaches to understand the contextual factors that will have influenced our quantitative findings to identify mechanisms to encourage adoption of social prescribing in primary care while improving data quality. Itwill comprise up to three 90-120 minute advisory group meetings for six to eight participants. Participants will be recruited based on their experience of delivering primary care within Oxfordshire and Surrey. The advisory group outputs will be analysed using framework analysis and will be used to create a survey instrument consisting of statements that surveyees, who will consist of primary care practitioners within the RCGP RSC, can agree or disagree with. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All RCGP RSC data are pseudonymised at the point of data extraction. No personally identifiable data are required for this investigation. This protocol follows the Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study checklist. The study results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and the dataset will be available to other researchers.

Indexed as

General PractitionersPrimary Health CareFeasibility StudiesHumansPrescriptionsResearch Personnelhealth informaticsprimary caresocial determinants of healthsocial prescribing

Identifiers

PMID32948564
PMCPMC7511614

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.