A comparison of social prescribing approaches across twelve high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Social prescribing connects patients with community resources to improve their health and well-being. It is gaining momentum globally due to its potential for addressing non-medical causes of illness while building on existing resources and enhancing overall health at a relatively low cost. The COVID-19 pandemic further underscored the need for policy interventions to address health-related social issues such as loneliness and isolation. AIM: This paper presents evidence of the conceptualisation and implementation of social prescribing schemes in twelve countries: Australia, Austria, Canada, England, Finland, Germany, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, the Netherlands, the United States and Wales. METHODS: Twelve countries were identified through the Health Systems and Policy Monitor (HSPM) network and the EuroHealthNet Partnership. Information was collected through a twelve open-ended question survey based on a conceptual model inspired by the WHO's Health System Framework. RESULTS: We found that social prescribing can take different forms, and the scale of implementation also varies significantly. Robust evidence on impact is scarce and highly context-specific, with some indications of cost-effectiveness and positive impact on well-being. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides insights into social prescribing in various contexts and may guide countries interested in holistically tackling health-related social factors and strengthening community-based care. Policies can support a more seamless integration of social prescribing into existing care, improve collaboration among sectors and training programs for health and social care professionals.

Why are some medical specialists working part-time, while others work full-time?

Although medical specialists primarily work full-time, part-time work is on the increase, a trend that can be found worldwide. This article seeks to answer the question why some medical specialists work part-time, while others do not although they are willing to work part-time. Two approaches are used. First, we studied reported reasons and as a second approach we used a theoretical model, based on goal-directed behavior and restrictions. A questionnaire was sent to all internists (N=817), surgeons (N=693) and radiologists (N=621) working in general hospitals in The Netherlands. Questions were asked about personal traits, characteristics of the work situation, and motives for working full-time or part-time. Frequencies were reported for the reasons given, and multilevel analysis was used to test the theoretical model. The results show that the reported reasons for working part-time and being willing to work part-time are the same: the importance of family and leisure pursuits. The second approach showed that medical specialists working part-time tend to be female, older, and have children below the age of five. Surgeons are least likely to work part-time. A willingness to work part-time is purely individual and not related to any of the explanatory variables. We conclude that working part-time is related to both professional and personal circumstances. Policy should be aimed at removing the organizational difficulties that obstruct the realization of part-time work. Alternatively, perhaps there should be a change in working hours for all medical specialists. As the majority of all full-time working medical specialists are willing to work part-time, this might indicate that most medical specialists actually prefer "normal" working hours.