A socially prescribed community service for people living with dementia and family carers and its long-term effects on well-being

Steps to implementation: Understanding barriers and enablers for implementing Arts on Prescription at Home for people impacted by dementia

ISSUE ADDRESSED

Arts on Prescription at Home (AoP@Home) involves a professional artist visiting a person with dementia and their informal carer(s) in their own home to engage them in participatory art making. While there is evidence for the use of these programs, more work is needed to facilitate effective implementation. This study explored contextual barriers and enablers to implementation of AoP@Home within a real-world community aged care service.

METHODS

Two remote focus groups were conducted at a community aged care provider in Sydney, Australia. Key stakeholders (n = 14) were recruited, representing: people with dementia, informal (family) carers, AoP artists, service referrers and community service managers. Focus group transcripts were analysed using qualitative content analysis and mapped onto the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Outcomes were reviewed against the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategy compilation to inform development of a tailored implementation strategy.

RESULTS

Four overarching themes described the range of barriers and enablers to AoP@Home implementation: (1) "I don't know enough about it" (awareness and engagement within the sector), (2) artists delivering programs, (3) awareness and engagement of people impacted by dementia, (4) practicalities of implementation. All five domains of the CFIR were represented across the four themes. The ERIC compilation provided a list of practical strategies for implementation of AoP@Home.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of psychosocial interventions for people living with dementia within a community aged care service is complex and multifactorial. So what?: Organisations planning implementation should consider conducting their own pre-implementation analysis to identify context-specific strategies.

Social prescribing outcomes: a mapping review of the evidence from 13 countries to identify key common outcomes

Introduction

As a means for supporting a range of health and wellbeing goals, social prescribing programs have been implemented around the world. Reflecting a range of contexts, needs, innovation, and programing, a broad array of outcomes has been studied in relation to these programs. As interest in social prescribing grows, more targeted study of key outcomes and in turn evidence synthesis that can inform evidence-based practice, policy, and investment is needed.

Methods and Results

This mapping review identified, described, and synthesized the broad array of social prescribing outcomes that have been studied in 13 countries and maps the outcomes that have been most commonly studied. From 87 articles included in this review, a total of 347 unique outcomes were identified, including 278 unique patient outcomes and 69 unique system outcomes. The most commonly studied categories of patient outcomes were found to be mental health, lifestyle and behavior, and patient/service user experience. The most commonly studied system outcomes were healthcare/service utilization and financial/economic outcomes.

Discussion

This review highlights the value of heterogeneity and mixed methods approaches in outcomes studies for capturing nuanced experiences and outcomes in this nascent area of practice, while contributing to the advancement of evidence synthesis for social prescribing globally by quantifying and offering insight into the outcomes that have been studied to date. It also lays a foundation for the development of key common outcomes and a Core Outcomes Set for social prescribing. Additionally, it identified key outcomes that, given their relationship to critical health and social issues, warrant both broader and deeper study.

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.

What Works to Improve Wellbeing? A Rapid Systematic Review of 223 Interventions Evaluated with the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scales

INTRODUCTION

The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS) is a commonly used scale of mental wellbeing focusing entirely on the positive aspect of mental health. It has been widely used in a broad range of clinical and research settings, including to evaluate if interventions, programmes or pilots improve wellbeing. We aimed to systematically review all interventions that used WEMWBS and evaluate which interventions are the most effective at improving wellbeing.

METHODS

Eligible populations included children and adults, with no health or age restrictions. Any intervention study was eligible if the wellbeing outcome was measured using the 7 or 14-item WEMWBS scale assessed both pre- and post-intervention. We identified eligible intervention studies using three approaches: a database search (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PyschInfo and Web of Science from January 2007 to present), grey literature search, and by issuing a call for evidence. Narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis of standardised mean differences in the intervention group were used to summarise intervention effects on WEMWBS score.

RESULTS

We identified 223 interventions across 209 studies, with a total of 53,834 participants across all studies. Five main themes of interventions were synthesised: psychological (n = 80); social (n = 54); arts, culture and environment (n = 29); physical health promotion (n = 18); and other (n = 28). Psychological interventions based on resilience, wellbeing or self-management techniques had the strongest effect on wellbeing. A broad range of other interventions were effective at improving mental wellbeing, including other psychological interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy, psychoeducation and mindfulness. Medium to strong effects were also seen for person-centred support/advice (social), arts-based, parenting (social) and social prescribing interventions. However, a major limitation of the evidence was that only 75 (36%) of studies included a control group.

CONCLUSIONS

WEMWBS has been widely used to assess wellbeing across a diverse range of interventions, settings and samples. Despite substantial heterogeneity in individual intervention design, delivery and groups targeted, results indicate that a broad range of intervention types can successfully improve wellbeing. Methodological changes, such as greater use of control groups in intervention evaluation, can help future researchers and policy makers further understand what works for mental wellbeing.

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).

Rural and urban disparities in potentially preventable hospitalizations among US patients with Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias: Evidence of hospital-based telehealth and enabling services

We examined urban and rural disparities in potentially preventable hospitalizations (PPHs) among US patients with Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD) and the use of telehealth post-discharge and enabling services as mediators. We merged 2017 100% Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS) claims with the Medicare Beneficiary Summary File, along with population and hospital-based characteristics. Logistic regression models were employed to examine differences in PPHs by telehealth and enabling services. The rates of PPHs related to acute and chronic conditions for patients with ADRD living in rural and micropolitan areas were significantly higher compared to patients with ADRD in urban areas. Telehealth post-discharge combined with enabling services significantly decreased the odds of PPHs associated with acute (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89-0.98, P-value <0.01) and chronic conditions (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.92-1.00, P-value = 0.07). In addition, telehealth post-discharge combined with enabling services significantly decreased the odds of PPHs in patients with ADRD in rural (acute PPHs OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.41-0.77, P-value <0.01; chronic PPHs OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.55-0.97, P-value = 0.03) and micropolitan (acute PPHs OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.57-0.73, P-value <0.01; chronic PPHs OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.74-0.93, P-value <0.01) areas. Our results suggest that the combinations of telehealth post-discharge and enabling services are important interventions in helping to reduce preventable hospitalizations among patients with ADRD living in rural and micropolitan areas.

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.