What is the best way to evaluate social prescribing? A qualitative feasibility assessment for a national impact evaluation study in England.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Journal of Health Services Research & Policy Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-15 DOI:10.1177/13558196231212854
Abimbola Ayorinde, Amy Grove, Iman Ghosh, Jenny Harlock, Edward Meehan, Natalie Tyldesley-Marshall, Adam Briggs, Aileen Clarke, Lena Al-Khudairy
{"title":"What is the best way to evaluate social prescribing? A qualitative feasibility assessment for a national impact evaluation study in England.","authors":"Abimbola Ayorinde, Amy Grove, Iman Ghosh, Jenny Harlock, Edward Meehan, Natalie Tyldesley-Marshall, Adam Briggs, Aileen Clarke, Lena Al-Khudairy","doi":"10.1177/13558196231212854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Despite significant investment in social prescribing in England over the last decade, we still do not know if it works, or how models of social prescribing fit within wider health and care policy and practice. This study explores current service delivery structures and assesses the feasibility of a national evaluation of the link worker model.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Semi-structured interviews were conducted between May and September 2020, with 25 key informants from across social prescribing services in England. Participants included link workers, voluntary, community and social enterprise staff, and those involved in policy and decision-making for social prescribing services. Interview and workshop transcripts were analysed thematically, adopting a framework approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found differences in how services are provided, including by individual link workers, and between organisations and regions. Standards, referral pathways, reporting, and monitoring structures differ or are lacking in voluntary services as compared to clinical services. People can self-refer to a link worker or be referred by a third party, but the lack of standardised processes generated confusion in both public and professional perceptions of the link worker model. We identified challenges in determining the appropriate outcomes and outcome measures needed to assess the impact of the link worker model.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The current varied service delivery structures in England poses major challenges for a national impact evaluation. Any future rigorous evaluation needs to be underpinned with national standardised outcomes and process measures which promote uniform data collection.</p>","PeriodicalId":15953,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Services Research & Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10910745/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Services Research & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13558196231212854","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Despite significant investment in social prescribing in England over the last decade, we still do not know if it works, or how models of social prescribing fit within wider health and care policy and practice. This study explores current service delivery structures and assesses the feasibility of a national evaluation of the link worker model.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted between May and September 2020, with 25 key informants from across social prescribing services in England. Participants included link workers, voluntary, community and social enterprise staff, and those involved in policy and decision-making for social prescribing services. Interview and workshop transcripts were analysed thematically, adopting a framework approach.

Results: We found differences in how services are provided, including by individual link workers, and between organisations and regions. Standards, referral pathways, reporting, and monitoring structures differ or are lacking in voluntary services as compared to clinical services. People can self-refer to a link worker or be referred by a third party, but the lack of standardised processes generated confusion in both public and professional perceptions of the link worker model. We identified challenges in determining the appropriate outcomes and outcome measures needed to assess the impact of the link worker model.

Conclusions: The current varied service delivery structures in England poses major challenges for a national impact evaluation. Any future rigorous evaluation needs to be underpinned with national standardised outcomes and process measures which promote uniform data collection.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估社会处方的最佳方式是什么?英格兰国家影响评估研究的定性可行性评估。
目标:尽管英格兰在过去十年中对社会处方进行了大量投资,但我们仍然不知道它是否有效,也不知道社会处方模式如何与更广泛的医疗保健政策和实践相适应。本研究探讨了当前的服务提供结构,并评估了对联系工作者模式进行全国性评估的可行性:在 2020 年 5 月至 9 月期间,对来自英格兰社会处方服务的 25 名关键信息提供者进行了半结构化访谈。参与者包括链接工作者、志愿者、社区和社会企业工作人员,以及参与社会处方服务政策和决策的人员。我们采用框架方法对访谈和研讨会记录进行了专题分析:结果:我们发现服务的提供方式存在差异,包括联系工作者个人的差异,以及不同组织和地区之间的差异。与临床服务相比,志愿服务的标准、转介途径、报告和监督结构存在差异或缺乏。人们可以自行转介给链接工作者,也可以由第三方转介,但由于缺乏标准化流程,公众和专业人士对链接工作者模式的认识都很混乱。我们发现,在确定评估链接工作者模式影响所需的适当结果和结果衡量标准方面存在挑战:结论:英格兰目前多种多样的服务提供结构给全国性影响评估带来了重大挑战。未来任何严格的评估都需要以全国标准化的结果和过程测量为基础,从而促进统一的数据收集。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: Journal of Health Services Research & Policy provides a unique opportunity to explore the ideas, policies and decisions shaping health services throughout the world. Edited and peer-reviewed by experts in the field and with a high academic standard and multidisciplinary approach, readers will gain a greater understanding of the current issues in healthcare policy and research. The journal"s strong international editorial advisory board also ensures that readers obtain a truly global and insightful perspective.
期刊最新文献
How can specialist investigation agencies inform system-wide learning for patient safety? A qualitative study of perspectives on the early years of the English healthcare safety investigation branch. What can the era of big data and big data analytics mean for health services research? Collaborative and integrated working between general practice and community pharmacies: A realist review of what works, for whom, and in which contexts. Public perspectives on the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening: A systematic review and mixed-method integrative synthesis. Rapid evidence assessment of student-assisted assessment and brief intervention clinics: Addressing the gaps in rural and remote health care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1