Social prescribing for migrants in the United Kingdom: A systematic review and call for evidence

PROTOCOL: Effects of social prescribing for older adults: An evidence and gap map

Objectives This is the protocol for an evidence and gap map. The objectives are as follows: The aim of this evidence and gap map is to map the available evidence on the effectiveness of social prescribing interventions addressing a non-medical, health-related social need for older adults in any setting. Specific objectives are as follows: 1.To identify existing evidence from primary studies and systematic reviews on the effects of community-based interventions that address non-medical, health-related social needs of older adults to improve their health and wellbeing.2.To identify research evidence gaps for new high-quality primary studies and systematic reviews.3.To highlight evidence of health equity considerations from included primary studies and systematic reviews.

Current Trends and Future Directions in Urban Social Prescribing

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Social prescribing (SP) is defined as a non-medical community referral program to support well-being and health. This review explores the current evidence about the effectiveness of SP.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review examined existing SP models that have been or are being tested to connect people to these opportunities through direct and indirect referral schemes. The review identified a fifth model that facilitates a group-based approach used to mental well-being and resilience. While the development of SP largely originates from the UK, the global interest in SP has increased, with over 31 nations reporting elements of SP. The main goal of SP is to better integrate care between the traditional medical setting and resources available in the community and voluntary sectors. Although this review found widespread optimism around SP, there remain concerns about its effectiveness and demands for high-quality evaluations to strengthen the evidence base for SP.

Older adults and social prescribing experience, outcomes, and processes: a meta-aggregation systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Social prescribing is a complex care model, which aims to address unmet non-medical needs and connect people to community resources. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize available evidence from qualitative methods (e.g. interviews or focus groups) on experience, outcomes, and processes for social prescribing and older adults (from the person or provider level).

STUDY DESIGN

This was a systematic review using the Joanna Brigg's meta-aggregative approach.

METHODS

We searched multiple online databases for peer-reviewed studies, which included older adults aged ≥60 years (group mean age) and social prescribing experience, outcomes, or processes. We included all qualitative or mixed methods designs from all years and languages. Date of the last primary search was March 24, 2022. Two authors used online software to conduct the screening independently and then decided on the final list of included studies via notes and online discussion.

RESULTS

We screened 376 citations (after duplicates) and included eight publications. There were 197 older adult participants (59% women), and many people were living with chronic health conditions. Few details were provided for participants' ethnicity, education, and related factors. We created five synthesized findings related to (1) the approach of social prescribing; implementation factors such as (2) relationships, (3) behavior change strategies, and (4) the environment; and (5) older adults' perceived health and psychosocial outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limited number of available studies, data provide an overview of people and processes involved with social prescribing, identified research and practice gaps, and possible next steps for implementing and evaluating social prescribing for older adults in primary care.

Effectiveness of social prescribing for chronic disease prevention in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Social prescribing (SP) enables healthcare professionals to link patients with non-medical interventions available in the community to address underlying socioeconomic and behavioural determinants. We synthesised the evidence to understand the effectiveness of SP for chronic disease prevention.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using five databases and two registries. Eligible studies included randomised controlled trials of SP among community-dwelling adults recruited from primary care or community setting, investigating any chronic disease risk factors defined by the WHO (behavioural factors: smoking, physical inactivity, unhealthy diet and excessive alcohol consumption; metabolic factors: raised blood pressure, overweight/obesity, hyperlipidaemia and hyperglycaemia). Random effect meta-analyses were performed at two time points: completion of intervention and follow-up after trial.

RESULTS

We identified nine reports from eight trials totalling 4621 participants. All studies evaluated SP exercise interventions which were highly heterogeneous regarding the content, duration, frequency and length of follow-up. Majority of studies had some concerns for risk of bias. Meta-analysis revealed that SP likely increased physical activity (completion: mean difference (MD) 21 min/week, 95% CI 3 to 39, I²=0%; follow-up ≤12 months: MD 19 min/week, 95% CI 8 to 29, I²=0%). However, SP may not improve markers of adiposity, blood pressure, glucose and serum lipid. There were no eligible studies that primarily target unhealthy diet, smoking and excessive alcohol drinking behaviours.

CONCLUSIONS

SP exercise interventions probably increased physical activity slightly; however, no benefits were observed for metabolic factors. Determining whether SP is effective in modifying the determinants of chronic diseases and promotes sustainable healthy behaviours is limited by the current evidence of quantification and uncertainty, warranting further rigorous studies.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022346687.

Social Prescribing Outcomes for Trials (SPOT): Protocol for a modified Delphi study on core outcomes

PURPOSE

This is a study protocol to co-create with knowledge users a core outcome set focused on middle-aged and older adults (40 years+) for use in social prescribing research.

METHODS

We will follow the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) guide and use modified Delphi methods, including collating outcomes reported in social prescribing publications, online surveys, and discussion with our team to finalize the core outcome set. We intentionally center this work on people who deliver and receive social prescribing and include methods to evaluate collaboration. Our three-part process includes: (1) identifying published systematic reviews on social prescribing for adults to extract reported outcomes; and (2) up to three rounds of online surveys to rate the importance of outcomes for social prescribing. For this part, we will invite people (n = 240) who represent the population experienced in social prescribing, including researchers, members of social prescribing organizations, and people who receive social prescribing and their caregivers. Finally, we will (3) convene a virtual team meeting to discuss and rank the findings and finalize the core outcome set and our knowledge mobilization plan.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study designed to use a modified Delphi method to co-create core outcomes for social prescribing. Development of a core outcome set contributes to improved knowledge synthesis via consistency in measures and terminology. We aim to develop guidance for future research, and specifically on the use of core outcomes for social prescribing at the person/patient, provider, program, and societal-level.

Understanding ethnic inequalities in mental healthcare in the UK: A meta-ethnography

BACKGROUND

Evidence regarding the presence and persistence of ethnic inequalities in mental healthcare is well established. The reasons for these inequalities and lack of progress in diminishing them are less understood. This meta-ethnography aims to provide a new conceptual understanding of how ethnic inequalities are created and sustained; this is essential to develop effective interventions. Specifically, we sought to understand why people from ethnic minority groups are underrepresented in primary care mental health service provision and overrepresented in crisis pathways and detention.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Following eMERGe guidelines for meta-ethnographies, we searched OpenGrey, Kings Fund, CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, and Social Care Online databases for qualitative articles published from database inception until October 2, 2022, using broad categories of search terms relating to "ethnicity AND (mental illness/mental health/emotional distress) AND (help-seeking/service utilisation/experience/perception/view)." We included all conceptually rich articles that used qualitative methods of data collection and analysis and excluded non-UK studies and those that focused solely on causation of mental illness. Our patient, public, and practitioner lived experience advisory group provided feedback and input on key stages of the project including search terms, research questions, data analysis, and dissemination. A total of 14,142 articles were identified; 66 met the inclusion criteria. We used reciprocal, refutational, and line of argument analytical approaches to identify convergence and divergence between studies. The synthesis showed that current models of statutory mental healthcare are experienced as a major barrier to the delivery of person-centred care to those in ethnic minority groups due to the perceived dominance of monocultural and reductionist frameworks of assessment and treatment (described as "medical" and "Eurocentric") and direct experiences of racist practice. The lack of socially oriented and holistic frameworks of knowledge and understanding in medical training and services is experienced as epistemic injustice, particularly among those who attribute their mental illness to experiences of migration, systemic racism, and complex trauma. Fear of harm, concerns about treatment suitability, and negative experiences with health providers such as racist care and medical neglect/injury contribute to avoidance of, and disengagement from, mainstream healthcare. The lack of progress in tackling ethnic inequalities is attributed to failures in coproduction and insufficient adoption of existing recommendations within services. Study limitations include insufficient recording of participant characteristics relating to generational status and social class in primary studies, which prevented exploration of these intersections.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we found that the delivery of safe and equitable person-centred care requires a model of mental health that is responsive to the lived experiences of people in ethnic minority groups. For the people considered in this review, this requires better alignment of mental health services with social and anti-racist models of care. Our findings suggest that intersections related to experiences of racism, migration, religion, and complex trauma might be more relevant than crude ethnic group classifications. Strategies to tackle ethnic inequalities in mental healthcare require an evaluation of individual, systemic, and structural obstacles to authentic and meaningful coproduction and implementation of existing community recommendations in services.

Systematic review of social prescribing and older adults: where to from here?

OBJECTIVE

Social prescribing is a person-centred model of care with emphases on lessening the impact of unmet social needs, supporting the delivery of personalised care, and reducing non-medical resource use in the primary care setting. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesise the effect of social prescribing for older adults within primary care.

DESIGN

We followed standard systematic review guidelines, including protocol registration, screening studies (title/abstract and full text) and assessing the study quality.

ELIGIBILITY AND INFORMATION SOURCES

We searched multiple online databases for studies that included older adults 60+ years (group mean age), an intervention defined and called social prescribing (or social prescription) via health provider referrals to non-medical services, and quantitative physical and psychosocial outcomes and/or health resource use. We included experimental and observational studies from all years and languages and conducted a narrative synthesis. The date of the last search was 24 March 2022.

RESULTS

We screened 406 citations (after removing duplicates) and included seven studies. All studies except one were before-after design without a control group, and all except one study was conducted in the UK. Studies included 12-159 participants (baseline), there were more women than men, the group mean (SD) age was 76.1 (4.0) years and data collection (baseline to final) occurred on average 19.4 (14.0) weeks apart. Social prescribing referrals came from health and social providers. Studies had considerable risk of bias, programme implementation details were missing, and for studies that reported data (n=6) on average only 66% of participants completed studies (per-protocol). There were some positive effects of social prescribing on physical and psychosocial outcomes (eg, social participation, well-being). Findings varied for health resource use. These results may change with new evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

There were few peer-reviewed studies available for social prescribing and older adults. Next steps for social prescribing should include co-creating initiatives with providers, older people and communities to identify meaningful outcomes, and feasible and robust methods for uptake of the prescription and community programmes. This should be considered in advance or in parallel with determining its effectiveness for meaningful outcomes at multiple levels (person, provider and programme).