Systematic review of social prescribing and older adults: where to from here?

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE Family Medicine and Community Health Pub Date : 2022-10-01 DOI:10.1136/fmch-2022-001829
Amanda Percival, Christie Newton, Kate Mulligan, Robert J Petrella, Maureen C Ashe
{"title":"Systematic review of social prescribing and older adults: where to from here?","authors":"Amanda Percival,&nbsp;Christie Newton,&nbsp;Kate Mulligan,&nbsp;Robert J Petrella,&nbsp;Maureen C Ashe","doi":"10.1136/fmch-2022-001829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Social prescribing is a person-centred model of care with emphases on lessening the impact of unmet social needs, supporting the delivery of personalised care, and reducing non-medical resource use in the primary care setting. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesise the effect of social prescribing for older adults within primary care.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We followed standard systematic review guidelines, including protocol registration, screening studies (title/abstract and full text) and assessing the study quality.</p><p><strong>Eligibility and information sources: </strong>We searched multiple online databases for studies that included older adults 60+ years (group mean age), an intervention defined and called social prescribing (or social prescription) via health provider referrals to non-medical services, and quantitative physical and psychosocial outcomes and/or health resource use. We included experimental and observational studies from all years and languages and conducted a narrative synthesis. The date of the last search was 24 March 2022.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We screened 406 citations (after removing duplicates) and included seven studies. All studies except one were before-after design without a control group, and all except one study was conducted in the UK. Studies included 12-159 participants (baseline), there were more women than men, the group mean (SD) age was 76.1 (4.0) years and data collection (baseline to final) occurred on average 19.4 (14.0) weeks apart. Social prescribing referrals came from health and social providers. Studies had considerable risk of bias, programme implementation details were missing, and for studies that reported data (n=6) on average only 66% of participants completed studies (per-protocol). There were some positive effects of social prescribing on physical and psychosocial outcomes (eg, social participation, well-being). Findings varied for health resource use. These results may change with new evidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There were few peer-reviewed studies available for social prescribing and older adults. Next steps for social prescribing should include co-creating initiatives with providers, older people and communities to identify meaningful outcomes, and feasible and robust methods for uptake of the prescription and community programmes. This should be considered in advance or in parallel with determining its effectiveness for meaningful outcomes at multiple levels (person, provider and programme).</p>","PeriodicalId":44590,"journal":{"name":"Family Medicine and Community Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/6d/79/fmch-2022-001829.PMC9557282.pdf","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family Medicine and Community Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2022-001829","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Objective: Social prescribing is a person-centred model of care with emphases on lessening the impact of unmet social needs, supporting the delivery of personalised care, and reducing non-medical resource use in the primary care setting. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesise the effect of social prescribing for older adults within primary care.

Design: We followed standard systematic review guidelines, including protocol registration, screening studies (title/abstract and full text) and assessing the study quality.

Eligibility and information sources: We searched multiple online databases for studies that included older adults 60+ years (group mean age), an intervention defined and called social prescribing (or social prescription) via health provider referrals to non-medical services, and quantitative physical and psychosocial outcomes and/or health resource use. We included experimental and observational studies from all years and languages and conducted a narrative synthesis. The date of the last search was 24 March 2022.

Results: We screened 406 citations (after removing duplicates) and included seven studies. All studies except one were before-after design without a control group, and all except one study was conducted in the UK. Studies included 12-159 participants (baseline), there were more women than men, the group mean (SD) age was 76.1 (4.0) years and data collection (baseline to final) occurred on average 19.4 (14.0) weeks apart. Social prescribing referrals came from health and social providers. Studies had considerable risk of bias, programme implementation details were missing, and for studies that reported data (n=6) on average only 66% of participants completed studies (per-protocol). There were some positive effects of social prescribing on physical and psychosocial outcomes (eg, social participation, well-being). Findings varied for health resource use. These results may change with new evidence.

Conclusions: There were few peer-reviewed studies available for social prescribing and older adults. Next steps for social prescribing should include co-creating initiatives with providers, older people and communities to identify meaningful outcomes, and feasible and robust methods for uptake of the prescription and community programmes. This should be considered in advance or in parallel with determining its effectiveness for meaningful outcomes at multiple levels (person, provider and programme).

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
社会处方和老年人的系统回顾:从这里开始?
目的:社会处方是一种以人为本的护理模式,重点是减少未满足的社会需求的影响,支持个性化护理的提供,并减少初级保健环境中的非医疗资源使用。本系统综述的目的是综合社会处方对初级保健老年人的影响。设计:我们遵循标准的系统评价指南,包括方案注册、筛选研究(标题/摘要和全文)和评估研究质量。资格和信息来源:我们搜索了多个在线数据库的研究,包括60岁以上的老年人(组平均年龄),通过健康提供者转介到非医疗服务的干预定义和称为社会处方(或社会处方),以及定量的身体和心理社会结果和/或健康资源使用。我们纳入了所有年龄和语言的实验和观察研究,并进行了叙事综合。最后一次搜索的日期是2022年3月24日。结果:我们筛选了406篇引用(去除重复后),纳入了7篇研究。除了一项研究外,所有的研究都是前后对照设计,没有对照组,除了一项研究外,所有的研究都是在英国进行的。研究包括12-159名参与者(基线),女性多于男性,组平均(SD)年龄为76.1(4.0)岁,数据收集(基线到最终)平均间隔19.4(14.0)周。社会处方转介来自健康和社会提供者。研究存在相当大的偏倚风险,项目实施细节缺失,对于报告数据的研究(n=6),平均只有66%的参与者完成了研究(每个方案)。社会处方对身体和社会心理结果(如社会参与、幸福感)有一些积极影响。卫生资源使用的调查结果各不相同。新的证据可能会改变这些结果。结论:很少有同行评议的研究可用于社会处方和老年人。社会处方的下一步应包括与提供者、老年人和社区共同创建倡议,以确定有意义的结果,以及采用处方和社区规划的可行和稳健的方法。应事先或在确定其在多个层面(人员、提供者和方案)取得有意义成果的有效性的同时考虑这一点。
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
9.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Medicine and Community Health (FMCH) is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal focusing on the topics of family medicine, general practice and community health. FMCH strives to be a leading international journal that promotes ‘Health Care for All’ through disseminating novel knowledge and best practices in primary care, family medicine, and community health. FMCH publishes original research, review, methodology, commentary, reflection, and case-study from the lens of population health. FMCH’s Asian Focus section features reports of family medicine development in the Asia-pacific region. FMCH aims to be an exemplary forum for the timely communication of medical knowledge and skills with the goal of promoting improved health care through the practice of family and community-based medicine globally. FMCH aims to serve a diverse audience including researchers, educators, policymakers and leaders of family medicine and community health. We also aim to provide content relevant for researchers working on population health, epidemiology, public policy, disease control and management, preventative medicine and disease burden. FMCH does not impose any article processing charges (APC) or submission charges.
期刊最新文献
fRAP 2.0: a community engagement method applied to cervical cancer disparities among Hispanic women. Survey of international experts on research priorities to improve care for healthy ageing. Global lessons on delivery of primary healthcare services for people with non-communicable diseases: convergent mixed methods. Individual and geospatial factors associated with receipt of colorectal cancer screening: a state-wide mixed-level analysis. Effectiveness of post-COVID-19 primary care attendance in improving survival in very old patients with multimorbidity: a territory-wide target trial emulation
×
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