The effectiveness of social prescribing in the management of long-term conditions in community-based adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Clinical Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-11 DOI:10.1177/02692155241258903
Declan J O'Sullivan, Lindsay M Bearne, Janas M Harrington, Jefferson R Cardoso, Joseph G McVeigh
{"title":"The effectiveness of social prescribing in the management of long-term conditions in community-based adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Declan J O'Sullivan, Lindsay M Bearne, Janas M Harrington, Jefferson R Cardoso, Joseph G McVeigh","doi":"10.1177/02692155241258903","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of social prescribing interventions in the management of long-term conditions in adults.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Eleven electronic databases were searched for randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>Outcomes of interest were quality of life, physical activity, psychological well-being and disease-specific measures. Bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. A narrative synthesis and meta-analysis were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve studies (<i>n</i> = 3566) were included in this review. Social prescribing interventions were heterogeneous and the most common risks of bias were poor blinding and high attrition. Social prescribing interventions designed to target specific long-term conditions i.e., cancer and diabetes demonstrated significant improvements in quality of life (<i>n</i> = 2 studies) and disease-specific psychological outcomes respectively (<i>n</i> = 3 studies). There was some evidence for improvement in physical activity (<i>n</i> = 2 studies) but most changes were within group only (<i>n</i> = 4 studies). Social prescribing interventions did not demonstrate any significant changes in general psychological well-being.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Social prescribing interventions demonstrated some improvements across a range of outcomes although the quality of evidence remains poor.</p>","PeriodicalId":10441,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1306-1320"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11528982/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155241258903","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of social prescribing interventions in the management of long-term conditions in adults.

Data sources: Eleven electronic databases were searched for randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials.

Review methods: Outcomes of interest were quality of life, physical activity, psychological well-being and disease-specific measures. Bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. A narrative synthesis and meta-analysis were performed.

Results: Twelve studies (n = 3566) were included in this review. Social prescribing interventions were heterogeneous and the most common risks of bias were poor blinding and high attrition. Social prescribing interventions designed to target specific long-term conditions i.e., cancer and diabetes demonstrated significant improvements in quality of life (n = 2 studies) and disease-specific psychological outcomes respectively (n = 3 studies). There was some evidence for improvement in physical activity (n = 2 studies) but most changes were within group only (n = 4 studies). Social prescribing interventions did not demonstrate any significant changes in general psychological well-being.

Conclusion: Social prescribing interventions demonstrated some improvements across a range of outcomes although the quality of evidence remains poor.

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
社会处方在社区成人长期病症管理中的有效性:系统回顾与荟萃分析。
目的本系统综述和荟萃分析的目的是评估社会处方干预在成人长期疾病管理中的有效性:检索了 11 个电子数据库中的随机和准随机对照试验:研究结果包括生活质量、身体活动、心理健康和疾病特异性指标。偏倚采用 Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 工具进行评估。进行了叙述性综合和荟萃分析:本综述纳入了 12 项研究(n = 3566)。社会处方干预措施多种多样,最常见的偏倚风险是盲法不完善和自然减员率高。针对特定长期病症(如癌症和糖尿病)的社会处方干预分别显著改善了生活质量(2 项研究)和特定疾病的心理结果(3 项研究)。有证据表明,体育锻炼有所改善(2 项研究),但大多数变化仅限于群体内部(4 项研究)。结论:结论:社会处方干预在一系列结果方面都有所改善,但证据质量仍然较差。
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
Clinical Rehabilitation
Clinical Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
117
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Rehabilitation covering the whole field of disability and rehabilitation, this peer-reviewed journal publishes research and discussion articles and acts as a forum for the international dissemination and exchange of information amongst the large number of professionals involved in rehabilitation. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
期刊最新文献
Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review. Effects of osteopathic manipulative treatment associated with transcranial direct current stimulation in individuals with chronic low back pain: A double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Efficacy of pelvic floor muscle training with physical therapy for low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prognostic factors of pain, disability, and poor outcomes in persons with neck pain - an umbrella review. Working towards consensus on the assessment of mood after severe acquired brain injury: Focus groups with UK-based professionals.
×
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