Cargando…

Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence

OBJECTIVES: Social prescribing is a way of linking patients in primary care with sources of support within the community to help improve their health and well-being. Social prescribing programmes are being widely promoted and adopted in the UK National Health Service and so we conducted a systematic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bickerdike, Liz, Booth, Alison, Wilson, Paul M, Farley, Kate, Wright, Kath
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5558801/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28389486
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013384
_version_ 1783257449741942784
author Bickerdike, Liz
Booth, Alison
Wilson, Paul M
Farley, Kate
Wright, Kath
author_facet Bickerdike, Liz
Booth, Alison
Wilson, Paul M
Farley, Kate
Wright, Kath
author_sort Bickerdike, Liz
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Social prescribing is a way of linking patients in primary care with sources of support within the community to help improve their health and well-being. Social prescribing programmes are being widely promoted and adopted in the UK National Health Service and so we conducted a systematic review to assess the evidence for their effectiveness. SETTING/DATA SOURCES: Nine databases were searched from 2000 to January 2016 for studies conducted in the UK. Relevant reports and guidelines, websites and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies. All the searches were restricted to English language only. PARTICIPANTS: Systematic reviews and any published evaluation of programmes where patient referral was made from a primary care setting to a link worker or facilitator of social prescribing were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias for included studies was undertaken independently by two reviewers and a narrative synthesis was performed. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes of interest were any measures of health and well-being and/or usage of health services. RESULTS: We included a total of 15 evaluations of social prescribing programmes. Most were small scale and limited by poor design and reporting. All were rated as a having a high risk of bias. Common design issues included a lack of comparative controls, short follow-up durations, a lack of standardised and validated measuring tools, missing data and a failure to consider potential confounding factors. Despite clear methodological shortcomings, most evaluations presented positive conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Social prescribing is being widely advocated and implemented but current evidence fails to provide sufficient detail to judge either success or value for money. If social prescribing is to realise its potential, future evaluations must be comparative by design and consider when, by whom, for whom, how well and at what cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO Registration: CRD42015023501.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5558801
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55588012017-08-18 Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence Bickerdike, Liz Booth, Alison Wilson, Paul M Farley, Kate Wright, Kath BMJ Open Health Services Research OBJECTIVES: Social prescribing is a way of linking patients in primary care with sources of support within the community to help improve their health and well-being. Social prescribing programmes are being widely promoted and adopted in the UK National Health Service and so we conducted a systematic review to assess the evidence for their effectiveness. SETTING/DATA SOURCES: Nine databases were searched from 2000 to January 2016 for studies conducted in the UK. Relevant reports and guidelines, websites and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies. All the searches were restricted to English language only. PARTICIPANTS: Systematic reviews and any published evaluation of programmes where patient referral was made from a primary care setting to a link worker or facilitator of social prescribing were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias for included studies was undertaken independently by two reviewers and a narrative synthesis was performed. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes of interest were any measures of health and well-being and/or usage of health services. RESULTS: We included a total of 15 evaluations of social prescribing programmes. Most were small scale and limited by poor design and reporting. All were rated as a having a high risk of bias. Common design issues included a lack of comparative controls, short follow-up durations, a lack of standardised and validated measuring tools, missing data and a failure to consider potential confounding factors. Despite clear methodological shortcomings, most evaluations presented positive conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Social prescribing is being widely advocated and implemented but current evidence fails to provide sufficient detail to judge either success or value for money. If social prescribing is to realise its potential, future evaluations must be comparative by design and consider when, by whom, for whom, how well and at what cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO Registration: CRD42015023501. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-04-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5558801/ /pubmed/28389486 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013384 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Health Services Research
Bickerdike, Liz
Booth, Alison
Wilson, Paul M
Farley, Kate
Wright, Kath
Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence
title Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence
title_full Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence
title_fullStr Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence
title_full_unstemmed Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence
title_short Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence
title_sort social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. a systematic review of the evidence
topic Health Services Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5558801/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28389486
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013384
work_keys_str_mv AT bickerdikeliz socialprescribinglessrhetoricandmorerealityasystematicreviewoftheevidence
AT boothalison socialprescribinglessrhetoricandmorerealityasystematicreviewoftheevidence
AT wilsonpaulm socialprescribinglessrhetoricandmorerealityasystematicreviewoftheevidence
AT farleykate socialprescribinglessrhetoricandmorerealityasystematicreviewoftheevidence
AT wrightkath socialprescribinglessrhetoricandmorerealityasystematicreviewoftheevidence