Evidence and methods required to evaluate the impact for patients who use social prescribing: a rapid systematic review and qualitative interviews

L. Al-Khudairy, A. Ayorinde, Iman Ghosh, A. Grove, J. Harlock, Edward Meehan, Adam Briggs, R. Court, A. Clarke
{"title":"Evidence and methods required to evaluate the impact for patients who use social prescribing: a rapid systematic review and qualitative interviews","authors":"L. Al-Khudairy, A. Ayorinde, Iman Ghosh, A. Grove, J. Harlock, Edward Meehan, Adam Briggs, R. Court, A. Clarke","doi":"10.3310/rmjh0230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Social prescribing encourages health-care and other professionals to refer patients to a link worker, who will develop a personalised plan to improve the patient’s health and well-being. We explore the feasibility of evaluating the service.\n \n \n \n The objective was to answer the following research questions. (1) What are the most important evaluation questions that an impact study could investigate? (2) What data are already available at a local or national level and what else would be needed? (3) Are there sites delivering at a large enough scale and in a position to take part in an impact study? (4) How could the known challenges to evaluation (e.g. information governance and identifying a control group) be addressed?\n \n \n \n Data sources included MEDLINE ALL (via Ovid), searched from inception to 14 February 2019, and the first 100 hits of a Google (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) search.\n \n \n \n Rapid systematic review – electronic searches up to February 2019. Studies included any study design or outcomes. Screening was conducted by one reviewer; eligibility assessment and data extraction were undertaken by two reviewers. Data were synthesised narratively. Qualitative interviews – data from 25 participants in different regions of England were analysed using a pragmatic framework approach across 12 areas including prior data collection, delivery sites, scale and processes of current service delivery, and known challenges to evaluation. Views of key stakeholders (i.e. patients and academics) were captured.\n \n \n \n Rapid systematic review – 27 out of 124 studies were included. We identified outcomes and highlighted research challenges. Important evaluation questions included identification of the most appropriate (1) outcomes and (2) methods for dealing with heterogeneity. Qualitative interviews – social prescribing programmes are holistic in nature, covering domains such as social isolation and finance. Service provision is heterogeneous. The follow-on services that patients access are often underfunded or short term. Available data – there was significant heterogeneity in data availability, format and follow-up. Data were collected using a range of tools in ad hoc databases across sites. Non-attendance data were frequently not captured. Service users are more deprived and vulnerable than the overall practice population. Feasibility and potential limitations of an evaluation – current data collection is limited in determining the effectiveness of the link worker social prescribing model; therefore, uniform data collection across sites is needed. Standardised outcomes and process measures are required. Cost–utility analysis could provide comparative values for assessment alongside other NHS interventions.\n \n \n \n This was a rapid systematic review that did not include a systematic quality assessment of studies. COVID-19 had an impact on the shape of the service. We were not able to examine the potential causal mechanisms in any detail.\n \n \n \n We describe possible future research approaches to determine effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evaluations; all are limited in their application. (1) Evaluation using currently available, routinely collected health-care, costing and outcomes data. (2) Evaluative mixed-methods research to capture the complexity of social prescribing through understanding heterogeneous service delivery across comparative settings. Cost-effectiveness evaluation using routinely available costing and outcomes data to supplement qualitative data. (3) Interventional evaluative research, such as a cluster randomised controlled trial focused on the link worker model. Cost-effectiveness data collected as part of the trial.\n \n \n \n Mature data are currently not available. There needs to be an agreement across schemes on the key outcomes that need to be measured, harmonisation of data collection, and follow-up referrals (how and when).\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":73204,"journal":{"name":"Health and social care delivery research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and social care delivery research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/rmjh0230","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Social prescribing encourages health-care and other professionals to refer patients to a link worker, who will develop a personalised plan to improve the patient’s health and well-being. We explore the feasibility of evaluating the service. The objective was to answer the following research questions. (1) What are the most important evaluation questions that an impact study could investigate? (2) What data are already available at a local or national level and what else would be needed? (3) Are there sites delivering at a large enough scale and in a position to take part in an impact study? (4) How could the known challenges to evaluation (e.g. information governance and identifying a control group) be addressed? Data sources included MEDLINE ALL (via Ovid), searched from inception to 14 February 2019, and the first 100 hits of a Google (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) search. Rapid systematic review – electronic searches up to February 2019. Studies included any study design or outcomes. Screening was conducted by one reviewer; eligibility assessment and data extraction were undertaken by two reviewers. Data were synthesised narratively. Qualitative interviews – data from 25 participants in different regions of England were analysed using a pragmatic framework approach across 12 areas including prior data collection, delivery sites, scale and processes of current service delivery, and known challenges to evaluation. Views of key stakeholders (i.e. patients and academics) were captured. Rapid systematic review – 27 out of 124 studies were included. We identified outcomes and highlighted research challenges. Important evaluation questions included identification of the most appropriate (1) outcomes and (2) methods for dealing with heterogeneity. Qualitative interviews – social prescribing programmes are holistic in nature, covering domains such as social isolation and finance. Service provision is heterogeneous. The follow-on services that patients access are often underfunded or short term. Available data – there was significant heterogeneity in data availability, format and follow-up. Data were collected using a range of tools in ad hoc databases across sites. Non-attendance data were frequently not captured. Service users are more deprived and vulnerable than the overall practice population. Feasibility and potential limitations of an evaluation – current data collection is limited in determining the effectiveness of the link worker social prescribing model; therefore, uniform data collection across sites is needed. Standardised outcomes and process measures are required. Cost–utility analysis could provide comparative values for assessment alongside other NHS interventions. This was a rapid systematic review that did not include a systematic quality assessment of studies. COVID-19 had an impact on the shape of the service. We were not able to examine the potential causal mechanisms in any detail. We describe possible future research approaches to determine effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evaluations; all are limited in their application. (1) Evaluation using currently available, routinely collected health-care, costing and outcomes data. (2) Evaluative mixed-methods research to capture the complexity of social prescribing through understanding heterogeneous service delivery across comparative settings. Cost-effectiveness evaluation using routinely available costing and outcomes data to supplement qualitative data. (3) Interventional evaluative research, such as a cluster randomised controlled trial focused on the link worker model. Cost-effectiveness data collected as part of the trial. Mature data are currently not available. There needs to be an agreement across schemes on the key outcomes that need to be measured, harmonisation of data collection, and follow-up referrals (how and when). This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
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
评估对使用社会处方的患者影响所需的证据和方法:快速系统回顾和定性访谈
社会处方鼓励医疗保健和其他专业人员将患者转介给联络员,联络员将制定个性化计划,以改善患者的健康和福祉。我们探讨评估服务的可行性。目的是回答以下研究问题。(1) 影响研究可以调查的最重要的评估问题是什么?(2) 地方或国家层面已经有哪些数据可用,还需要什么?(3) 是否有规模足够大的场地可以参与影响研究?(4) 如何应对评估方面的已知挑战(例如信息治理和确定控制小组)?数据来源包括从成立到2019年2月14日搜索的MEDLINE ALL(通过Ovid),以及谷歌(美国加利福尼亚州山景城股份有限公司谷歌)搜索的前100次点击。快速系统审查-截至2019年2月的电子搜索。研究包括任何研究设计或结果。筛选由一名评审员进行;资格评估和数据提取由两名审查人员进行。数据被叙述性地合成。定性访谈——使用务实的框架方法对来自英格兰不同地区的25名参与者的数据进行了分析,涉及12个领域,包括先前的数据收集、提供地点、当前服务提供的规模和过程,以及已知的评估挑战。听取了主要利益相关者(即患者和学者)的意见。快速系统回顾——124项研究中有27项被纳入。我们确定了成果并强调了研究挑战。重要的评估问题包括确定最合适的(1)结果和(2)处理异质性的方法。定性访谈——社会处方计划具有整体性,涵盖社会隔离和金融等领域。服务提供是异构的。患者获得的后续服务往往资金不足或短期。可用数据——在数据可用性、格式和后续行动方面存在显著的异质性。数据是使用各站点特设数据库中的一系列工具收集的。非出勤数据经常没有被记录下来。服务使用者比整个执业人群更为贫困和脆弱。评估的可行性和潜在局限性——目前的数据收集在确定环节工作者社会处方模型的有效性方面受到限制;因此,需要跨站点进行统一的数据收集。需要标准化的结果和过程措施。成本-效用分析可以与其他NHS干预措施一起为评估提供比较价值。这是一次快速系统的审查,不包括对研究的系统质量评估。新冠肺炎对服务的形状产生了影响。我们无法详细研究潜在的因果机制。我们描述了未来可能的研究方法,以确定有效性和成本效益评估;所有这些在应用方面都受到限制。(1) 使用现有的、常规收集的医疗保健、成本和结果数据进行评估。(2) 评估性混合方法研究,通过了解比较环境中的异质服务提供来捕捉社会处方的复杂性。成本效益评估,使用常规可用的成本和结果数据来补充定性数据。(3) 干预性评估研究,如一项集中于链接工作者模型的集群随机对照试验。作为试验的一部分收集的成本效益数据。目前还没有成熟的数据。各计划之间需要就需要衡量的关键结果、数据收集的协调以及后续转介(如何以及何时)达成一致。该项目由国家卫生与护理研究所(NIHR)卫生与社会护理提供研究计划资助,并将在《卫生与社会保健提供研究》上全文发表;第10卷,第29期。有关更多项目信息,请访问NIHR期刊图书馆网站。
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
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Causes and solutions to workplace psychological ill-health for nurses, midwives and paramedics: the Care Under Pressure 2 realist review. Relationship between staff and quality of care in care homes: StaRQ mixed methods study. Practices of falls risk assessment and prevention in acute hospital settings: a realist investigation. Safer and more efficient vital signs monitoring protocols to identify the deteriorating patients in the general hospital ward: an observational study. Reducing health inequalities through general practice: a realist review and action framework.
×
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