Cargando…

Exploring how and why social prescribing evaluations work: a realist review

OBJECTIVE: The evidence base for social prescribing is inconclusive, and evaluations have been criticised for lacking rigour. This realist review sought to understand how and why social prescribing evaluations work or do not work. Findings from this review will contribute to the development of an ev...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Elliott, Megan, Davies, Mark, Davies, Julie, Wallace, Carolyn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8984010/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35383075
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057009
_version_ 1784682086303531008
author Elliott, Megan
Davies, Mark
Davies, Julie
Wallace, Carolyn
author_facet Elliott, Megan
Davies, Mark
Davies, Julie
Wallace, Carolyn
author_sort Elliott, Megan
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The evidence base for social prescribing is inconclusive, and evaluations have been criticised for lacking rigour. This realist review sought to understand how and why social prescribing evaluations work or do not work. Findings from this review will contribute to the development of an evidence-based evaluation framework and reporting standards for social prescribing. DESIGN: A realist review. DATA SOURCES: ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus Online, Social Care Online, Web of Science and grey literature. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Documents reporting on social prescribing evaluations using any methods, published between 1998 and 2020 were included. Documents not reporting findings or lacking detail on methods for data collection and outcomes were excluded. ANALYSIS: Included documents were segregated into subcases based on methodology. Data relating to context, mechanisms and outcomes and the programme theory were extracted and context-mechanism-outcome configurations were developed. Meta-inferences were drawn from all subcases to refine the programme theory. RESULTS: 83 documents contributed to analysis. Generally, studies lacked in-depth descriptions of the methods and evaluation processes employed. A cyclical process of social prescribing evaluation was identified, involving preparation, conducting the study and interpretation. The analysis found that coproduction, alignment, research agency, sequential mixed-methods design and integration of findings all contributed to the development of an acceptable, high-quality social prescribing evaluation design. Context-mechanism-outcome configurations relating to these themes are reported. CONCLUSIONS: To develop the social prescribing evidence base and address gaps in our knowledge about the impact of social prescribing and how it works, evaluations must be high quality and acceptable to stakeholders. Development of an evaluation framework and reporting standards drawing on the findings of this realist review will support this aim. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020183065.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8984010
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89840102022-04-22 Exploring how and why social prescribing evaluations work: a realist review Elliott, Megan Davies, Mark Davies, Julie Wallace, Carolyn BMJ Open Public Health OBJECTIVE: The evidence base for social prescribing is inconclusive, and evaluations have been criticised for lacking rigour. This realist review sought to understand how and why social prescribing evaluations work or do not work. Findings from this review will contribute to the development of an evidence-based evaluation framework and reporting standards for social prescribing. DESIGN: A realist review. DATA SOURCES: ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus Online, Social Care Online, Web of Science and grey literature. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Documents reporting on social prescribing evaluations using any methods, published between 1998 and 2020 were included. Documents not reporting findings or lacking detail on methods for data collection and outcomes were excluded. ANALYSIS: Included documents were segregated into subcases based on methodology. Data relating to context, mechanisms and outcomes and the programme theory were extracted and context-mechanism-outcome configurations were developed. Meta-inferences were drawn from all subcases to refine the programme theory. RESULTS: 83 documents contributed to analysis. Generally, studies lacked in-depth descriptions of the methods and evaluation processes employed. A cyclical process of social prescribing evaluation was identified, involving preparation, conducting the study and interpretation. The analysis found that coproduction, alignment, research agency, sequential mixed-methods design and integration of findings all contributed to the development of an acceptable, high-quality social prescribing evaluation design. Context-mechanism-outcome configurations relating to these themes are reported. CONCLUSIONS: To develop the social prescribing evidence base and address gaps in our knowledge about the impact of social prescribing and how it works, evaluations must be high quality and acceptable to stakeholders. Development of an evaluation framework and reporting standards drawing on the findings of this realist review will support this aim. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020183065. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-04-05 /pmc/articles/PMC8984010/ /pubmed/35383075 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057009 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Public Health
Elliott, Megan
Davies, Mark
Davies, Julie
Wallace, Carolyn
Exploring how and why social prescribing evaluations work: a realist review
title Exploring how and why social prescribing evaluations work: a realist review
title_full Exploring how and why social prescribing evaluations work: a realist review
title_fullStr Exploring how and why social prescribing evaluations work: a realist review
title_full_unstemmed Exploring how and why social prescribing evaluations work: a realist review
title_short Exploring how and why social prescribing evaluations work: a realist review
title_sort exploring how and why social prescribing evaluations work: a realist review
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8984010/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35383075
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057009
work_keys_str_mv AT elliottmegan exploringhowandwhysocialprescribingevaluationsworkarealistreview
AT daviesmark exploringhowandwhysocialprescribingevaluationsworkarealistreview
AT daviesjulie exploringhowandwhysocialprescribingevaluationsworkarealistreview
AT wallacecarolyn exploringhowandwhysocialprescribingevaluationsworkarealistreview