Could social prescribing contribute to type 2 diabetes prevention in people at high risk? Protocol for a realist, multilevel, mixed methods review and evaluation

Models of social prescribing to address non-medical needs in adults: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

The health and wellbeing consequences of social determinants of health and health behaviours are well established. This has led to a growing interest in social prescribing, which involves linking people to services and supports in the community and voluntary sectors to address non-medical needs. However, there is considerable variability in approaches to social prescribing with little guidance on how social prescribing could be developed to reflect local health systems and needs. The purpose of this scoping review was to describe the types of social prescribing models used to address non-medical needs to inform co-design and decision-making for social prescribing program developers.

METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE(R), CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform, and ProQuest - Dissertations and Theses for articles and grey literature describing social prescribing programs. Reference lists of literature reviews were also searched. The searches were conducted on 2 August 2021 and yielded 5383 results following removal of duplicates.

RESULTS

148 documents describing 159 social prescribing programs were included in the review. We describe the contexts in which the programs were delivered, the program target groups and services/supports to which participants were referred, the staff involved in the programs, program funding, and the use of digital systems.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variability in social prescribing approaches internationally. Social prescribing programs can be summarised as including six planning stages and six program processes. We provide guidance for decision-makers regarding what to consider when designing social prescribing programs.

Social isolation and subsequent health and well-being in older adults: A longitudinal outcome-wide analysis

BACKGROUND

Social isolation has become a serious public health issue. However, most previous studies examine the relationship between social isolation and a single outcome. We aimed to conduct holistic assessments to understand the multidimensional impacts of social isolation on health and well-being.

METHODS

We used the three-wave data (2013, 2016, and 2019) obtained from the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study. Our exposure, obtained from the 2016 survey, was the Social Isolation Index (SII) comprising five components: no partner, poor interaction with children, poor interaction with relatives, poor interaction with friends, and no social participation). We assessed 36 health and well-being outcomes across six dimensions obtained from the 2019 survey: physical/cognitive health, health behaviours, mental health, subjective well-being, social isolation, and cognitive social capital. Pre-exposure characteristics and prior outcome levels in 2013 were adjusted. We included 47,318 respondents for 4 outcomes (death, dementia, and functional disability) and 34,187 respondents for 32 other outcomes. The Bonferroni correction was used to correct for multiple tests.

RESULTS

The total SII scores were associated with a wide range of health and well-being outcomes across the six dimensions. Specifically, we found a robust association between an SII score of four or greater with mortality (Odds ratio: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.46-2.43). Among the five components of the SII, poor interaction with friends and no social participation showed robust associations with a wide range of health and well-being. We also found some robust evidence regarding effect modification by gender and age in the associations between the components of the SII and health and well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

Social isolation, specifically social interaction with friends and social participation, may affect a wide range of health and well-being among older adults.

Unravelling the potential of social prescribing in individual-level type 2 diabetes prevention: a mixed-methods realist evaluation

BACKGROUND

Social prescribing (SP) usually involves linking patients in primary care with services provided by the voluntary and community sector. Preliminary evidence suggests that SP may offer a means of connecting patients with community-based health promotion activities, potentially contributing to the prevention of long-term conditions, such as type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

Using mixed-methods realist evaluation, we explored the possible contribution of SP to individual-level prevention of T2D in a multi-ethnic, socio-economically deprived population in London, UK. We made comparisons with an existing prevention programme (NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NDPP)) where relevant and possible. Anonymised primary care electronic health record data of 447,360 people 18+ with an active GP registration between December 2016 and February 2022 were analysed using quantitative methods. Qualitative data (interviews with 11 primary care clinicians, 11 social prescribers, 13 community organisations and 8 SP users at high risk of T2D; 36 hours of ethnographic observations of SP and NDPP sessions; and relevant documents) were analysed thematically. Data were integrated using visual means and realist methods.

RESULTS

People at high risk of T2D were four times more likely to be referred into SP than the eligible general population (RR 4.31 (95% CI 4.17-4.46)), with adjustment for socio-demographic variables resulting in attenuation (RR 1.33 (95% CI 1.27-1.39)). More people at risk of T2D were referred to SP than to NDPP, which could be explained by the broad referral criteria for SP and highly supportive (proactive, welcoming) environments. Holistic and sustained SP allowed acknowledgement of patients' wider socio-economic constraints and provision of long-term personalised care. The fact that SP was embedded within the local community and primary care infrastructure facilitated the timely exchange of information and cross-referrals across providers, resulting in enhanced service responsiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that SP may offer an opportunity for individual-level T2D prevention to shift away from standardised, targeted and short-term strategies to approaches that are increasingly personalised, inclusive and long-term. Primary care-based SP seems most ideally placed to deliver such approaches where practitioners, providers and commissioners work collectively to achieve holistic, accessible, sustained and integrated services.

Impact of a social prescribing intervention in North East England on adults with type 2 diabetes: the SPRING_NE multimethod study

Background

Link worker social prescribing enables health-care professionals to address patients’ non-medical needs by linking patients into various services. Evidence for its effectiveness and how it is experienced by link workers and clients is lacking.

Objectives

To evaluate the impact and costs of a link worker social prescribing intervention on health and health-care costs and utilisation and to observe link worker delivery and patient engagement.

Data sources

Quality Outcomes Framework and Secondary Services Use data.

Design

Multimethods comprising (1) quasi-experimental evaluation of effects of social prescribing on health and health-care use, (2) cost-effectiveness analysis, (3) ethnographic methods to explore intervention delivery and receipt, and (4) a supplementary interview study examining intervention impact during the first UK COVID-19 lockdown (April–July 2020).

Study population and setting

Community-dwelling adults aged 40–74 years with type 2 diabetes and link workers in a socioeconomically deprived locality of North East England, UK.

Intervention

Link worker social prescribing to improve health and well-being-related outcomes among people with long-term conditions.

Participants

(1) Health outcomes study, approximately n = 8400 patients; EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L), study, n = 694 (baseline) and n = 474 (follow-up); (2) ethnography, n = 20 link workers and n = 19 clients; and COVID-19 interviews, n = 14 staff and n = 44 clients.

Main outcome measures

The main outcome measures were glycated haemoglobin level (HbA1c; primary outcome), body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol level, smoking status, health-care costs and utilisation, and EQ-5D-5L score.

Results

Intention-to-treat analysis of approximately 8400 patients in 13 intervention and 11 control general practices demonstrated a statistically significant, although not clinically significant, difference in HbA1c level (–1.11 mmol/mol) and a non-statistically significant 1.5-percentage-point reduction in the probability of having high blood pressure, but no statistically significant effects on other outcomes. Health-care cost estimates ranged from £18.22 (individuals with one extra comorbidity) to –£50.35 (individuals with no extra comorbidity). A statistically non-significant shift from unplanned (non-elective and accident and emergency admissions) to planned care (elective and outpatient care) was observed. Subgroup analysis showed more benefit for individuals living in more deprived areas, for the ethnically white and those with fewer comorbidities. The mean cost of the intervention itself was £1345 per participant; the incremental mean health gain was 0.004 quality-adjusted life-years (95% confidence interval –0.022 to 0.029 quality-adjusted life-years); and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £327,250 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Ethnographic data showed that successfully embedded, holistic social prescribing providing supported linking to navigate social determinants of health was challenging to deliver, but could offer opportunities for improving health and well-being. However, the intervention was heterogeneous and was shaped in unanticipated ways by the delivery context. Pressures to generate referrals and meet targets detracted from face-to-face contact and capacity to address setbacks among those with complex health and social problems.

Limitations

The limitations of the study include (1) a reduced sample size because of non-participation of seven general practices; (2) incompleteness and unreliability of some of the Quality and Outcomes Framework data; (3) unavailability of accurate data on intervention intensity and patient comorbidity; (4) reliance on an exploratory analysis with significant sensitivity analysis; and (5) limited perspectives from voluntary, community and social enterprise.

Conclusions

This social prescribing model resulted in a small improvement in glycaemic control. Outcome effects varied across different groups and the experience of social prescribing differed depending on client circumstances.

Future work

To examine how the NHS Primary Care Network social prescribing is being operationalised; its impact on health outcomes, service use and costs; and its tailoring to different contexts.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN13880272.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme, Community Groups and Health Promotion (grant no. 16/122/33) and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 11, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

Tensions and opportunities in social prescribing. Developing a framework to facilitate its implementation and evaluation in primary care: a realist review

Background

Social prescribing (SP) involves linking patients in primary care with services provided by the voluntary and community sector (VCS). Despite growing interest within NHS primary care, it remains unclear how and under what circumstances SP might contribute to good practice.

Aim

To define ‘good’ practice in SP by identifying context-specific enablers and tensions. To contribute to the development of an evidence-based framework for theorising and evaluating SP within primary care.

Design & setting

Realist review of secondary data from primary care-based SP schemes.

Method

Academic articles and grey literature were searched for qualitative and quantitative evidence following the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses — Evolving Standards (RAMESES). Common SP practices were characterised in three settings (general practice, link workers, and community sector) using archetypes that ranged from best to worst practice.

Results

A total of 140 studies were included for analysis. Resources were identified influencing the type and potential impact of SP practices and four dimensions were outlined in which opportunities for good practice arise: 1) individual characteristics (stakeholder’s buy-in, vocation, and knowledge); 2) interpersonal relations (trustful, bidirectional, informed, supportive, and transparent and convenient interactions within and across sectors); 3) organisational contingencies (the availability of a predisposed practice culture, leadership, training opportunities, supervision, information governance, resource adequacy, accessibility, and continuity of care within organisations); and 4) policy structures (bottom-up and coherent policymaking, stable funding, and suitable monitoring strategies). Findings were synthesised in a multilevel, dynamic, and usable SP framework.

Conclusion

The realist review and resulting framework revealed that SP is not inherently advantageous. Specific individual, interpersonal, organisational, and policy resources are needed to ensure SP best practice in primary care.