Social Prescribing in National Health Service Primary Care: What Are the Ethical Considerations?

Integrating social prescribing in a Canadian regional health system to support healthy aging

INTRODUCTION

Social prescribing (SP) is a rapidly growing health and social model of care. The concept of social prescribing is based on well-known clinical practices such as community referrals, integrated health and social care, and navigator models. Although SP began in the United Kingdom's mental health and social care field, there are many examples of different models of SP foci and pathways. Here in Canada, SP is emerging at several provincial locations, with differences in its delivery reflecting the local context of people and places.

Theories used to develop or evaluate social prescribing in studies: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aims to provide an overview of how theories were used in the development or evaluation of social prescribing (SP) intervention studies.

BACKGROUND

SP describes a patient pathway where general practitioners (GPs) connect patients with community activities through referrals to link workers. This review seeks to understand the explanations provided for the outcomes and implementation process of SP.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies using a defined theory to develop or evaluate a specific SP intervention in primary care and the community sector.

METHODS

This scoping review was conducted in accordance with JBI methodology. The following databases were searched on 8th of July 2022: PubMed, ASSIA, Cochrane, Cinahl, PsycINFO, Social Care Online, Sociological Abstracts, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search only considered English language texts. Additional literature was identified by searching relevant web pages and by contacting experts. The selection of sources and the data extraction was done by two reviewers independently.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 4240 reports, of which 18 were included in the scoping review. Of these, 16 were conducted in the UK, one in Canada and one in Australia. The majority of reports employed a qualitative approach (11/18). Three were study protocols. 11 distinct theories were applied to explain outcomes (4 theories), differences in outcomes (3 theories), and the implementation of the intervention (4 theories). In terms of practical application, the identified theories were predominantly used to explain and understand qualitative findings. Only one theory was used to define variables for hypothesis testing. All theories were used for the evaluation and none for the development of SP.

CONCLUSION

The theories influenced which outcomes the evaluation assessed, which causal pathway was expected to generate these outcomes, and which methodological approaches were used. All three groups of theories that were identified focus on relevant aspects of SP: fostering positive patient/community outcomes, addressing inequalities by considering the context of someone's individual circumstances, and successfully implementing SP by collaboratively working across professions and institutional boundaries. Additional insight is required regarding the optimal use of theories in practical applications.

Speaking the same language - a scoping review to identify the terminology associated with social prescribing

AIM

To identify the social prescribing-related terminology within the peer-reviewed literature of the UK and the grey literature from Wales.

BACKGROUND

Social prescribing has seen a period of development that has been accompanied by a proliferation of related terminology and a lack of standardisation in the manner in which it is employed. This creates barriers to engagement and impairs communication, both between professionals and members of the public. The Wales School for Social Prescribing Research and Public Health Wales committed to the development of a glossary of terms for social prescribing, to facilitate the clarification and standardisation of the associated terminology. Here, we describe the first step in that process.

METHOD

A scoping review of the peer-reviewed UK literature and Welsh grey literature was conducted. The titles and abstracts of 46,242 documents and the full text of 738 documents were screened. Data were charted from 205 documents. Data capture included terminology, the location within the UK of the research or intervention described in the article, and the perspective from which the article was authored. A general inductive approach was used to categorise the terms by theme.

FINDINGS

This research serves to highlight the breadth and diversity of the terminology associated with social prescribing. Results demonstrate aspects of shared commonality and clear distinction between the terminology from the two literature sources. The greatest contributions of terms were from articles that examined research and/or interventions in England and that were authored from the perspective of health or health and social care. The research indicates that nation- and sector-specific terms may not be adequately represented in the literature at large. Looking forward, it will be important to ensure that social prescribing terminology within the UK literature is culturally relevant and accurately reflects the terminology used by the workforce who encounter and deliver social prescribing.

Implementation and impact of a social prescribing intervention: an ethnographic exploration

BACKGROUND

Social prescribing involves referral of patients from primary care to link workers, who work with them to access appropriate local voluntary and community sector services.

AIM

To explore how a social prescribing intervention was delivered by link workers and the experiences of those referred to the intervention.

DESIGN AND SETTING

The study used ethnographic methods to conduct a process evaluation of a social prescribing intervention delivered to support those living with long-term conditions in an economically deprived urban area of the North of England.

METHOD

Participant observation, shadowing, interviews, and focus groups were used to examine the experiences and practices of 20 link workers and 19 clients over a period of 19 months.

RESULTS

Social prescribing provided significant help for some people living with long-term health conditions. However, link workers experienced challenges in embedding social prescribing in an established primary care and voluntary sector landscape. The organisations providing social prescribing drew on broader social discourses emphasising personal responsibility for health, which encouraged a drift towards an approach that emphasised empowerment for lifestyle change more than intensive support. Pressures to complete assessments, required for funding, also encouraged a drift to this lighter-touch approach. A focus on individual responsibility was helpful for some clients but had limited capacity to improve the circumstances or health of those living in the most disadvantaged circumstances.

CONCLUSION

Careful consideration of how social prescribing is implemented within primary care is required if it is to provide the support needed by those living in disadvantaged circumstances.

The feasibility of identifying health inequalities in social prescribing referrals and declines using primary care patient records

Background

Social prescribing (SP) is part of universal personalised care and available to everyone in the UK National Health Service. However, emerging evidence suggests access disparities in social prescribing. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of using primary care records to access and analyse data on social prescribing. Our secondary aim was to compare characteristics of patients who are offered referral, referred to or decline referral for social prescribing to explore possible inequalities in access to social prescribing.

Methods

Patient records (n=3086) were extracted from 11 GP practices across Northwest England for accepted, offered and declined social prescribing referrals. Patient demographics collected included sex, age, ethnicity, mental and physical health diagnoses. Patient characteristics in social prescribing referrals were compared to the overall practice population (practice information from Public Health England). Referral and decline rates were compared by group (e.g. male/female decline rates).

Results

GP referral data showed inconsistent recording of wider determinants of health. Patient age, sex and mental and physical health conditions were consistently recorded. Other variables (marital status, interpreter need, education, disability, sexual orientation, non-English language, nationality) were recorded only sporadically and could not be used for analysis. Practices varied in referral patterns. Our preliminary findings identified under-referring of younger age groups and Asians, and higher declined referrals among individuals with physical health diagnoses.

Conclusions

Recording discrepancies meant that many patient factors could not be used to identify trends in social prescribing referrals and declines and assess equity. Primary care data recording must be consistent to understand SP referral trends and inequalities relating to the wider determinants of health. Preliminary results suggest some patient groups may be underrepresented in SP referrals, however this requires further investigation.

Factors influencing social prescribing initiatives: a systematic review of qualitative evidence

AIMS

Social prescribing is a growing health policy agenda to improve the quality and effectiveness of health systems. However, systematically collected knowledge on factors influencing the effective implementation of SP is scarce. A systematic review was conducted to identify and categorize factors influencing social prescribing initiatives.

METHODS

A search of three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge) was carried out to retrieve studies from inception to May 2022, supplemented by grey literature searching and snowballing of the relevant references. The inclusion criteria were original empirical research, qualitative data collection, and a description of factors affecting social prescribing initiatives. Study quality was evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. We categorized the results of individual studies using a narrative approach.

RESULTS

A total of 23 studies were included for analysis. Along with patient-related factors (patient-centeredness, clinical complexity, perception, knowledge), three main settings of social prescribing initiatives (including healthcare providers, link workers, and voluntary and community sectors) are affected by (1) individual characteristics (knowledge, perception, skill mix); (2) interpersonal relations (collaboration, trust, feedback, supportive climate, follow-up, sustained connection, peer support within and across sectors); (3) organizational contingencies (resource adequacy, staffing, training, role description, continuity of support, caseload management, monitoring, affordability, accessibility, referral criteria, and tailored support); and (4) political context (national policy and guidance, stewardship, planning, cocreation, bureaucracy, economic condition, and the number of support organizations).

CONCLUSION

Many factors influencing social prescribing initiatives were identified. The results of this review can be applied by different stakeholders of social prescribing to guide development, implementation, description, and evaluation.

Experiences of Non-Pharmaceutical Primary Care Interventions for Common Mental Health Disorders in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Groups: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies

Common mental health disorders (CMDs) disproportionately affect people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as 'social prescribing' and new models of care and clinical practice, are becoming increasingly prevalent in primary care. However, little is known about how these interventions work and their impact on socioeconomic inequalities in health. Focusing on people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, this systematic review aims to: (1) explore the mechanisms by which non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions impact CMD-related health outcomes and inequalities; (2) identify the barriers to, and facilitators of, their implementation in primary care. This study is a systematic review of qualitative studies. Six bibliographic databases were searched (Medline, ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo and Scopus) and additional grey literature sources were screened. The included studies were thematically analysed. Twenty-two studies were included, and three themes were identified: (1) agency; (2) social connections; (3) socioeconomic environment. The interventions were experienced as being positive for mental health when people felt a sense of agency and social connection. The barriers to effectiveness and engagement included socioeconomic deprivation and underfunding of community sector organisations. If non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions for CMDs are to avoid widening health inequalities, key socioeconomic barriers to their accessibility and implementation must be addressed.

Constituting link working through choice and care: An ethnographic account of front-line social prescribing

Link worker social prescribing has become a prominent part of NHS England's personalisation agenda. However, approaches to social prescribing vary, with multiple discourses emerging about the potential of social prescribing and different interpretations of personalisation. The transformational promise of social prescribing is the subject of ongoing debate, whilst the factors that shape the nature of front-line link working practices remain unclear. Based on 11 months of in-depth ethnographic research with link workers delivering social prescribing, we show how link workers' practices were shaped by the context of the intervention and how individual link workers navigated varied understandings of social prescribing. Following the work of Mol, we show how link workers drew differentially on the interacting logics of choice and care and trace a multiplicity in front-line link working practices within a single intervention. However, over time, it appeared that a logic of choice was becoming increasingly dominant, making it harder to deliver practices that aligned with a logic of care. We conclude that interpreting personalisation through a logic of choice could potentially undermine link working practices that privilege care whilst obscuring the need for wider investment in health care systems and the social determinants of health.

Increased Social Support Reduces the Incidence of Motoric Cognitive Risk Syndrome

Background and Objectives

The motoric cognitive risk syndrome (MCR) is a predementia syndrome characterized by slow gait and cognitive complaint. The relationship between MCR and social support—a potentially modifiable risk factor of dementia—is currently unknown. The current study aimed to determine whether MCR incidence varies as a function of social support in aging.

Research Design and Methods

We examined MCR incidence in 506 community-dwelling older adults (M Age 76.59; 57.3% female) without MCR or dementia at baseline. We quantified perceived levels of social support with the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey, incorporating four different categories of support: (a) emotional/informational support, (b) tangible support, (c) affectionate support, and (d) positive social interactions. We used Cox regression analyses, adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, comorbidities, and global cognition, to estimate hazard ratios (aHR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Over a median follow-up time of 2.5 years (range = 1–7 years), 38 participants (9.8%) developed MCR. Increased tangible support decreased the risk of MCR by 30% (aHR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.53–0.92, p = .011). Increased overall social support decreased the risk of MCR by 33% (aHR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.46–0.98, p = .038). Other subcategories of social support were not associated with a decreased risk of MCR (p > .05).

Discussion and Implications

Higher levels of tangible social support, as well as overall social support, were associated with reduced risk for MCR in older adults. Increasing social support may be a promising avenue of intervention for reducing the risk of MCR, dementia, and other forms of cognitive decline.

Financing Approaches to Social Prescribing Programs in England and the United States

Policy Points The number of social prescribing practices, which aim to link patients with nonmedical services and supports to address patients' social needs, is increasing in both England and the United States. Traditional health care financing mechanisms were not designed to support social prescribing practices, and flexible payment approaches may not support their widespread adoption. Policymakers in both countries are shifting toward developing explicit financing streams for social prescribing programs. Consequently, we need an evaluation of them to assess their success in supporting both the acceptance of these programs and their impacts. Investment in community-based organizations and wider public services will likely be crucial to both the long-term effectiveness and the sustainability of social prescribing.

Global developments in social prescribing

Social prescribing is an approach that aims to improve health and well-being. It connects individuals to non-clinical services and supports that address social needs, such as those related to loneliness, housing instability and mental health. At the person level, social prescribing can give individuals the knowledge, skills, motivation and confidence to manage their own health and well-being. At the society level, it can facilitate greater collaboration across health, social, and community sectors to promote integrated care and move beyond the traditional biomedical model of health. While the term social prescribing was first popularised in the UK, this practice has become more prevalent and widely publicised internationally over the last decade. This paper aims to illuminate the ways social prescribing has been conceptualised and implemented across 17 countries in Europe, Asia, Australia and North America. We draw from the 'Beyond the Building Blocks' framework to describe the essential inputs for adopting social prescribing into policy and practice, related to service delivery; social determinants and household production of health; workforce; leadership and governance; financing, community organisations and societal partnerships; health technology; and information, learning and accountability. Cross-cutting lessons can inform country and regional efforts to tailor social prescribing models to best support local needs.

What does the literature mean by social prescribing? A critical review using discourse analysis

Social prescribing (SP) seeks to enhance the role of the voluntary and community sector in addressing patients' complex needs in primary care. Using discourse analysis, this review investigates how SP is framed in the scientific literature and explores its consequences for service delivery. Theory driven searches identified 89 academic articles and grey literature that included both qualitative and quantitative evidence. Across the literature three main discourses were identified. The first one emphasised increasing social inequalities behind escalating health problems and presented SP as a response to the social determinants of health. The second one problematised people's increasing use of health services and depicted SP as a means of enhancing self-care. The third one stressed the dearth of human and relational dimensions in general practice and claimed that SP could restore personalised care. Discourses circulated unevenly in the scientific literature, conditioned by a wider political rationality which emphasised individual responsibility and framed SP as 'solution' to complex and contentious problems. Critically, this contributed to an oversimplification of the realities of the problems being addressed and the delivery of SP. We propose an alternative 'care-based' framing of SP which prioritises (and evaluates) holistic, sustained and accessible practices within strengthened primary care systems.