4.5 Review

The impact of social prescribing services on service users: a systematic review of the evidence

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 664-673

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckz078

关键词

-

资金

  1. Luton Borough Council [201518]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Social prescribing initiatives are widely implemented in the UK National Health Service to integrate health and social care. Social prescribing is a service in primary care that links patients with non-medical needs to sources of support provided by the community and voluntary sector to help improve their health and wellbeing. Such programmes usually include navigators, who work with referred patients and issue onward referrals to sources of non-medical support. This systematic review aimed to assess the evidence of service user outcomes of social prescribing programmes based on primary care and involving navigators. Methods: We searched 11 databases, the grey literature, and the reference lists of relevant studies to identify the available evidence on the impact of social prescribing on service users. Searches were limited to literature written in English. No date restrictions were applied, and searches were conducted to June 2018. Findings were synthesized narratively, employing thematic analysis. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool Version 2011 was used to evaluate the methodological quality of included studies. Results: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The evidence base is mixed, some studies found improvements in health and wellbeing, health-related behaviours, self-concepts, feelings, social contacts and day-to-day functioning post-social prescribing, whereas others have not. The review also shows that the evaluation methodologies utilized were variable in quality. Conclusion: In order to assess the success of social prescribing services, more high quality and comparable evaluations need to be conducted in the future. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews number: CRD42017079664

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据