Menu
  • CPD online - National Elf Service
  • Take your event #BeyondTheRoom
  • Online mental health events
  • Contact us
  • News

No bias. No misinformation. No spin. Just what you need!

The Mental Elf

  • Home
  • About
  • Categories
      • Cost effectiveness
      • Evaluation and impact assessment
      • Financial management
      • Financial sustainability
      • Integration
      • Needs assessment
      • Outcomes based commissioning
      • Partnership working
      • Population health
      • Resource allocation
      • Service reconfiguration
      • Service review and improvement
      • Specialised commissioning
      • Strategy development and planning
      • Technology
      • Urgent care
      • Variation
      • caries
      • cleft lip and palate
      • dental workforce
      • endodontics
      • oral and maxillofacial surgery
      • oral cancer
      • oral health
      • oral medicine and pathology
      • orthodontics
      • periodontal disease
      • restorative dentistry
      • temporomandibular joint disorders
      • tooth surface loss
    • Diagnosis
      • brain imaging
      • diagnostic test
      • risk factors
      • screening programme
      • screening test
      • behaviour
      • ICT
      • learning styles
      • numeracy
      • phonics
      • reading
      • science
      • social emotional
      • social skills
      • wellbeing
      • autistic spectrum disorder
      • challenging behaviour
      • communication
      • down syndrome
      • parents with learning disabilities
      • prader-willi syndrome
      • profound and multiple learning disability
    • Mental health
      • ADHD
      • anxiety
      • bipolar disorder
      • dementia
      • depression
      • eating disorders
      • OCD
      • panic disorder
      • personality disorders
      • psychosis
      • PTSD
      • schizophrenia
      • self-harm
      • sleep disorders
      • substance misuse
      • suicide
      • autoimmune and inflammatory diseases
      • fibromyalgia
      • fractures and dislocations
      • musculoskeletal pain
      • neck and back pain
      • osteoarthritis
      • osteoporosis
      • rheumatoid arthritis
      • soft tissue injuries
      • spinal conditions
      • spondyloarthropathies
    • Other health conditions
      • blood-borne viruses
      • cancer
      • cardiovascular disease
      • chronic fatigue syndrome
      • comorbidity
      • epilepsy
      • sleep apnoea
      • traumatic brain injury
    • Populations and settings
      • advocacy
      • black and minority ethnic
      • caregivers
      • child and adolescent
      • commissioning
      • community settings
      • crime
      • deinstitutionalisation
      • employment
      • end of life
      • family carers
      • hospital admissions
      • housing
      • later life
      • LGBTQ+
      • liaison psychiatry
      • loneliness
      • older adult
      • parenting
      • patient safety
      • perinatal mental health
      • poverty
      • pregnancy
      • primary care
      • quality of life
      • schools
      • secondary care
      • service user involvement
      • shared care
      • sport
      • training
      • vulnerable people
      • young adult
    • Publication types
      • appraisal
      • audit
      • case study
      • case-control
      • cohort study
      • consultation
      • cross-sectional
      • economic analysis
      • economic evaluation
      • guideline
      • legislation
      • literature review
      • meta-analysis
      • mixed methods
      • observational study
      • patient information
      • policy
      • prospective study
      • qualitative
      • questionnaire
      • randomised controlled trial
      • report
      • scoping review
      • statistics
      • survey
      • systematic review
      • technology assessment
      • training resource
      • umbrella review
      • website
      • coproduction
      • equality and diversity
      • evidence based social care
      • home care
      • integration
      • local authorities
      • nursing homes
      • personal budgets and direct payments
      • personalisation
      • reablement
      • residential care
      • safeguarding
      • social care decision making
      • social care training
      • social care workforce
      • social work
      • support planning
      • user led organisations
      • voluntary and community sector
    • Treatment
      • antidepressants
      • antipsychotics
      • CBT
      • cognitive bias modification (cbm)
      • complementary and alternative
      • digital health
      • exercise
      • medicines
      • mental illness prevention
      • mindfulness
      • other
      • psychotherapy
      • rehabilitation
      • self-management
      • surgical
      • systems
      • telehealth
      • topical
  • Podcasts
Search

Home » Posts » Social care » voluntary and community sector » Social prescribing: we’re doing it more and more, but is there evidence that it works?

Social prescribing: we’re doing it more and more, but is there evidence that it works?

No Responses »
Nov 21 2019
Profile photo of Stella Tsoli
Posted by
Stella Tsoli>,
Dafni Katsampa
shutterstock_351655727

Social prescribing programmes are proposed with strong cost-effective potential for general practice. They have been widely promoted since 2006 when the Department of Health advocated the introduction of social prescriptions for those with long-term conditions. Through social prescribing programmes, patients are linked to alternative sources of non-medical support within the community via social workers (also known as “navigators”, link workers, community navigators etc). In the latest NHS Long Term Plan (NHS England, 2018), it is highlighted that “within five years over 2.5 million more people will benefit from social prescribing”.

An important question that merits attention is the evidence base for social prescribing programmes. In the last decade, we’ve seen a proliferation of papers with previous reviews conducted on the topic attempting to fill out the gap in the literature. Kilgarriff-Foster and O’Cathain, (2015) attempted for the first time to map the overall evidence base on the impact of social prescribing by conducting a scoping review. A more recent review (Bickerdike et al., 2017) explored the effectiveness of social prescribing for people with mental health difficulties, with little convincing evidence identified.

So far, previous studies have not reached consensus on the impact of the programmes. Thus, this review by Pescheny et al. (2019) sets out to examine the latest literature published since the last review, including additional qualitative evidence and exploring more outcomes relevant to service users.

Previous research indicates a lack of consensus about the impact of social prescribing. 

Previous research indicates a lack of consensus about the impact of social prescribing.

Methods

An inclusive set of criteria were used to assess the eligibility of the studies with no restrictions applied on the outcome measures, study design, and quality of the studies. Studies were eligible if they:

  • Assessed social prescribing programmes on a primary care setting in the UK , where primary care staff referred patients to a “navigator” 
  • Were written in English

The authors conducted a thorough literature review of eligible studies on multiple electronic scientific databases, the grey literature and reference lists until June 2018.

The study adopted a two-stage screening process with an initial screening of titles, abstracts and summaries and a full-text screening performed at a second stage. In both stages, the screening was performed by one reviewer and a random sample of 25% of the sample was screened by a second reviewer. A similar procedure was followed for data extraction. The Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool was used by two reviewers to assess the methodological strength of the studies and the validity of the findings. 

The authors conducted a thematic analysis, which is a method of narrative synthesis and allowed them to identify service user outcomes and categorise them into themes.

Results

In total, 7,676 papers were identified through scientific databases and 800 through the grey literature. Following the two-stage screening process, 16 studies were included. 

Overall, the majority of papers identified by the authors (10 out of 16) adopted a mixed-methods study design. 

The results of those studies were explored through the following emerging themes: 

Health and wellbeing

  • Consistent improvement was reported in qualitative studies for physical and mental health and well-being outcomes such as blood pressure, weight loss, reduced cholesterol and sugar levels.
  • Opposing that, mixed findings emerged from the quantitative studies. For example, half of the papers identified a significant improvement.
  • There was a limited number of studies that recorded beneficial effects on general health, pain and quality of life.
  • The findings on general wellbeing were contradictory and there were no effects on the prescription of medication.

Health-related behaviours

  • The studies on health-related behaviours were more consistent with improvements reported in a number of health-related behaviours such as physical activity.
  • Qualitative studies reported the beneficial effects that social prescribing had on service users regarding the establishment of a supportive environment, engagement with the services and engagement in health-behaviour change.

Self-concepts and feelings

  • This theme was exclusively informed by qualitative and descriptive studies.
  • Participation in social prescribing programmes was associated with beneficial effects in self-esteem, self-value, self-confidence and feelings of worthiness.

Social interactions

  • The users of social prescribing services reported beneficial effects on social interactions and cultural engagement due to their participation.
  • Nevertheless, the findings of the three quantitative studies did not agree with the qualitative results.

Day-to-day functioning

  • A number of the included papers (primarily qualitative) reported beneficial effects of the service users on day-to-day functioning activities such as employment assistance, welfare and practical support. 
The inconclusive findings of this mixed methods review suggest that social prescribing leads to improvements in health and wellbeing, health-related behaviours, self-concepts, feelings, social contacts and day-to-day functioning.

The inconclusive findings of this mixed methods review suggest that social prescribing leads to improvements in health and wellbeing, health-related behaviours, self-concepts, feelings, social contacts and day-to-day functioning.

Conclusions

The authors concluded that the current evidence base is “considerably behind practice”, but also emphasise that evidence about the impact of social prescribing services remains inconclusive:

In order to assess the success of social prescribing services, more high quality and comparable evaluations need to be conducted in the future.

Strengths and limitations

 This review has several strengths, including: 

  • The usage of a wide range of sources of the available literature.
  • The coverage of literature published up until 2018.
  • The coverage of a wide range of mixed study designs, which was not limited to findings of effectiveness.

Nevertheless, as in all studies, there are some limitations worth acknowledging:

  • The methodological quality of the included studies was generally low. As mentioned by the authors, the lack of detailed reporting of key aspects of the studies such as data collection tools and results, just to name a few, represented one of the key challenges for assessing the quality. 
  • The authors aimed to identify studies that referenced any service user outcome. However, in their search strategy they restricted the keywords to health and well-being outcomes. It is therefore likely that research focusing on non-health and well-being outcomes (e.g. social effects) was not included in the review.
  • They do not report the sample sizes of the individual papers included in the review and thus comparative assessment is difficult.
Although this systematic review includes a wide range of studies, it's likely that a significant body of evidence looking at social outcomes was not included.

Although this systematic review includes a wide range of studies, it’s likely that a significant body of evidence looking at social outcomes was not included.

Implications for practice

The mixed findings of the review hinder our ability to drive implications for practice. The current state of literature suggests that the available evidence is not fully-qualified to allow for an informed judgement on the success or failure of the social prescribing programmes. 

The sample sizes of the quantitative studies included are small and the applied tools used to measure service use are diverse. Additionally, the reporting of specific details in the papers was limited and so limited in assessing the contribution of the programmes. Conversely, qualitative findings reach some agreement.

It becomes clear that the current programmes are lacking vigorous and comparable evaluation. The creation and adaptation of a common evaluation framework is critical for the success of social prescribing schemes. Given the nature of the programmes, we also need to consider what are the wider social gains of the schemes. Can those be measured? Their long-term impact should not be overlooked. A number of resources on recommendations are available from the Social Prescribing Network (2017).

Another important understudied issue is the financial aspect. Social prescribing programmes were developed with the intention to reduce burden on general practices. A technical report by Folley et al., (2017) showed “average reductions following referrals to social prescribing themes of 28% in GP services, 24% in attendance at A&E and statistically significant drops in referrals to hospitals”. Given the lack of established economic evaluations for the schemes, we need to address the question: are they value for money?

The role of the navigator in the programmes is instrumental. The plethora of the social prescribing models employed different ways of how link workers were used. Thus future research needs to fill out this evidence gap. Are there specific aspects that are critical in the role of the navigators such as delivery methods, number of consultations, training etc? Wildman et al. (2017) highlight the importance of highly developed personal skills of the link workers and sufficient time spent with patients. Future schemes need to employ evidence-based approaches, which are yet to be fully-explored.

The NHS has set up a biggest investment in social prescribing than any other national health system. For me, the potential of the social prescribing programmes is compelling, but the quality of the evidence needs to be improved!

Current social prescribing programmes are lacking vigorous and comparable evaluation, thus the creation and adaptation of an evaluation framework is critical for their success.

Current social prescribing programmes are lacking vigorous and comparable evaluation, thus the creation and adaptation of an evaluation framework is critical for their success.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Links

Primary paper

Pescheny, J. V. et al. (2019). The impact of social prescribing services on service users: a systematic review of the evidence. European Journal of Public Health. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckz078

Other references

NHS England, (2018). The NHS long term plan. London: NHS England.

Kilgarriff-Foster A. and O’Cathain  A. (2015). Exploring the components and impact of social prescribing (PDF). Journal of Public Mental Health, 14(3), 127-134. 

Bickerdike, L. et al. (2017). Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence. BMJ Open, 7(4), e013384. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013384

Polley et al. (2017) Making Sense of Social Prescribing (PDF). Social Prescribing Network.

Polley, M.J. and Pilkington, K. (2017). A review of the evidence assessing impact of social prescribing on healthcare demand and cost implications (PDF). University of Westminster.

Wildman, JM et al. (2019). Link workers’ perspectives on factors enabling and preventing client engagement with social prescribing. Health Soc Care Community. 27: 991– 998. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12716

Share on Facebook Tweet this on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Google+
Mark as read

Share this post:

Share on Facebook Tweet this on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Google+ Share via email
Create a personal elf note about this blog
Tagged with: behavioural functioning, cultural engagement, European Journal of Public Health, health and wellbeing, mixed methods study, narrative synthesis, physical activity, positive self concept, primary care, qualitative, self-concept, self-esteem, social interaction, social prescribing, systematic review
Profile photo of Stella Tsoli

Stella Tsoli

Stella is a PhD student at the Centre for Longitudinal Studies at UCL, exploring the longitudinal association of social capital on physical and mental health using the British birth cohort studies. She is very interested in the impact of social determinants on population health, particularly with the use of biomarkers of heath. She is the Early Career Representative at the Executive Committee of the Society for Longitudinal and Life Course Studies and a member of the MARCH Network. Stella has a background in Epidemiology and Environmental Science. She has a MPhil in Public Health from University of Cambridge and has previously worked for the London School of Hygiene, WHO and Doctors of the World. Stella i , also, an art enthusiastic and coffee lover.

More posts

Follow me here –

  • Twitter
Profile photo of Dafni Katsampa

Dafni Katsampa

Dafni is a psychology graduate with an MSc in Clinical Mental Health Sciences from UCL. She is currently an ECR at MARCH Network (UCL) and working as a researcher at Samaritans in the Online Harms Programme. The aim of this programme is to understand the nature of online harmful content and the impact of engaging with such content on young people. Previously, Dafni worked at the Middlesex University on a suicide prevention project commissioned by Samaritans and Network Rail. She explored bystander life-saving interventions when someone is at risk and/or feeling suicidal at public places. Her research interests include suicide prevention, social determinants and their impact on mental health, health inequalities and promotion of wellbeing through cultural engagement.

More posts

Follow me here –

  • Twitter
Logging In...

Profile cancel

Sign in with Twitter Sign in with Facebook
or

Not published

Try out our members features!

Sign up now. It’s free! Or Sign in

We can help you:

  • 1Keep up to date with the latest research
  • 2Connect with experts and colleagues
  • 3Contribute to your professional development
Tell me more about the benefits of membership

FOLLOW the Mental Elf

  • Find us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Follow us on Google+
  • Read our RSS feed
  • Find us on LinkedIn

Twitter

  • Today @KoehlerWill summarises a ‘netnographic’ study, which provides a clarion call to those working within trauma-… https://t.co/k0ZdYG1ctR about 1 hour ago Reply Retweet Favorite
  • RT @Cathy_Creswell: If you are interested in doing mental health research do have a look at the fab new @MHRIncubator website below. Its a… about 3 hours ago Reply Retweet Favorite
  • Get your #AntiRacistMHResearch tickets now! @FrankKeating7 & @rianna_walcott will speak on 9th Feb You will learn… https://t.co/yqhdDHj4zF about 3 hours ago Reply Retweet Favorite
  • A matter of trust: helping adolescents open up about their trauma https://t.co/faH0raoXGW #Trust #MentalHealth… https://t.co/k2841Glyju about 4 hours ago Reply Retweet Favorite
  • RT @TheJCPP: Our next #CAMHScampfire event is this Thursday & will be looking at paper from our sister journal @TheCAMH with @drSarahParry… about 4 hours ago Reply Retweet Favorite
Mental_Elf

Recent Posts

  • A matter of trust: helping adolescents open up about their trauma
  • Are clinicians’ attitudes to technology stopping children and adolescents from accessing mental health care?
  • Stigma and discrimination in people at risk of psychosis
  • Do prisons have more room for emotions than we think? Staff views on the link between suicide, violence and emotions
  • Non-suicidal self injury in bisexual populations

Recent Comments

  • Betty Hildebrand on Life expectancy in schizophrenia and years of potential life lost
  • Richard on Conspiracy theories and coronavirus: one in four people “endorse unequivocally false ideas about the pandemic”
  • Nathan on What content is found in the mental health apps that people are actually using?

Suggest a paper

Do you have a suggestion for a paper? Then let us know.

Click here

Watch our 2 minute promo video!

Visit our other Elf blogs

  • Child
  • Commissioning
  • Dentistry
  • Diabetes
  • Education
  • Learning Disabilities
  • Lifestyle
  • Mental Health
  • Musculoskeletal
  • Social Care
  • Stroke

Free trial

Close
Ready to get started? It's free!
Sign up now No thanks Tell me more about the benefits of membership

Free email newsletter

FOLLOW the Mental Elf

  • Find us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Follow us on Google+
  • Read our RSS feed
  • Find us on LinkedIn
© 2021 National Elf Service is brought to you by Minervation Ltd
Email: info@nationalelfservice.net
  • About
  • Evaluation
  • Site Map
  • Terms
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Log In