What does social prescribing look like in practice? A qualitative case study informed by practice theory.

Social prescribing (SP) typically involves linking patients in primary care with a range of local, community-based, non-clinical services. While there is a growing body of literature investigating the effectiveness of SP in improving healthcare outcomes, questions remain about how such outcomes are achieved within the everyday complexity of community health systems. This qualitative case study, informed by practice theory, aimed to investigate how SP practices relevant to people at high risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) were enacted in a primary care and community setting serving a multi-ethnic, socioeconomically deprived population. We collected different types of qualitative data, including 35 semi-structured interviews with primary care clinicians, link workers and SP organisations; 30 hours of ethnographic observations of community-based SP activities and meetings; and relevant documents. Data analysis drew on theories of social practice, including Feldman's (2000) notion of the organisational routine, which emphasises the creative and emergent nature of routines in practice. We identified different, overlapping ways of practising SP: from highly creative, reflective and adaptive ('I do what it takes'), to more constrained ('I do what I can') or compliant ('I do as I'm told') approaches. Different types of practices were in tension and showed varying degrees of potential to support patients at high risk of T2D. Opportunities to adapt, try, negotiate, and ultimately reinvent SP to suit patients' own needs facilitated successful SP adoption and implementation, but required specific individual, relational, organisational, and institutional resources and conditions. Feldman, M.S., 2000. Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change. Organ. Sci. 11, 611-629.

British South Asian ancestry participants views of pharmacogenomics clinical implementation and research: a thematic analysis.

BACKGROUND: South Asian ancestry populations are underrepresented in genomic studies and therapeutics trials. British South Asians suffer from multi-morbidity leading to polypharmacy. Our objective was to elucidate British South Asian ancestry community perspectives on pharmacogenomic implementation and sharing pharmacogenomic clinical data for research. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted (9-12 participants in each). Two groups were mixed gender, while one group was male only and one was female only. Simultaneous interpretation was available to participants in Urdu and Bengali. Focus groups were recorded and abridged transcription and thematic analysis were undertaken. RESULTS: There were 42 participants, 64% female. 26% were born in the UK or Europe. 52% were born in Bangladesh and 17% in Pakistan. 36% reported university level education. Implementation of pharmacogenomics was perceived to be beneficial to individuals but pose a risk of overburdening resource limited systems. Pharmacogenomic research was perceived to be beneficial to the community, with concerns about data privacy and misuse. Data sharing was desirable if the researchers did not have a financial stake, and benefits would be shared. Trust was the key condition for the acceptability of both clinical implementation and research. Trust was linked with medication compliance. Education, outreach, and communication facilitate trust. CONCLUSIONS (SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY): Pharmacogenomics implementation with appropriate education and communication has the potential to enhance trust and contribute to increased medication compliance. Trust drives data sharing, which would enable enhanced representation in research. Representation in scientific evidence base could cyclically enhance trust and compliance.

Series: Public engagement with research. Part 1: The fundamentals of public engagement with research.

BACKGROUND: In the first of a four-part series, we describe the fundamentals of public engagement in primary care research. OBJECTIVES: The article's purpose is to encourage, inform and improve the researcher's awareness about public engagement in research. For a growing number of researchers, funders and patient organisations in Europe, public engagement is a moral and ethical imperative for conducting high-quality research. DISCUSSION: Starting with an explanation of the role of public engagement in research, we highlight its diversity and benefits to research, researchers and the public members involved. We summarise principles of good practice and provide valuable resources for researchers to use in their public engagement activities. Finally, we discuss some of the issues encountered when researchers collaborate with members of the public and provide practical steps to address them. Case studies of real-life situations are used to illustrate and aid understanding. CONCLUSION: We hope this article and the other papers in this series will encourage researchers to better consider the role and practice of public engagement and the potential added value to research that collaborating with the public could provide.

Unravelling the potential of social prescribing in individual-level type 2 diabetes prevention: a mixed-methods realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Social prescribing (SP) usually involves linking patients in primary care with services provided by the voluntary and community sector. Preliminary evidence suggests that SP may offer a means of connecting patients with community-based health promotion activities, potentially contributing to the prevention of long-term conditions, such as type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: Using mixed-methods realist evaluation, we explored the possible contribution of SP to individual-level prevention of T2D in a multi-ethnic, socio-economically deprived population in London, UK. We made comparisons with an existing prevention programme (NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NDPP)) where relevant and possible. Anonymised primary care electronic health record data of 447,360 people 18+ with an active GP registration between December 2016 and February 2022 were analysed using quantitative methods. Qualitative data (interviews with 11 primary care clinicians, 11 social prescribers, 13 community organisations and 8 SP users at high risk of T2D; 36 hours of ethnographic observations of SP and NDPP sessions; and relevant documents) were analysed thematically. Data were integrated using visual means and realist methods. RESULTS: People at high risk of T2D were four times more likely to be referred into SP than the eligible general population (RR 4.31 (95% CI 4.17-4.46)), with adjustment for socio-demographic variables resulting in attenuation (RR 1.33 (95% CI 1.27-1.39)). More people at risk of T2D were referred to SP than to NDPP, which could be explained by the broad referral criteria for SP and highly supportive (proactive, welcoming) environments. Holistic and sustained SP allowed acknowledgement of patients' wider socio-economic constraints and provision of long-term personalised care. The fact that SP was embedded within the local community and primary care infrastructure facilitated the timely exchange of information and cross-referrals across providers, resulting in enhanced service responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that SP may offer an opportunity for individual-level T2D prevention to shift away from standardised, targeted and short-term strategies to approaches that are increasingly personalised, inclusive and long-term. Primary care-based SP seems most ideally placed to deliver such approaches where practitioners, providers and commissioners work collectively to achieve holistic, accessible, sustained and integrated services.

Reluctance of general practice staff to register patients without documentation: a qualitative study in North East London.

BACKGROUND: Lack of access to documentation is a key barrier to GP registration, despite NHS England guidance stating that documents are not required. Staff attitudes and practice regarding registration of those without documentation are under- researched. AIM: To understand the processes through which registration might be refused for those without documents, and the factors operating to influence this. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study conducted in general practice across three clinical commissioning groups in North East London. METHOD: In total, 33 participants (GP staff involved in registering new patients) were recruited through email invitation. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis. Two social theories informed this analysis: Lipsky's street-level bureaucracy and Bourdieu's theory of practice. RESULTS: Despite good knowledge of guidance, most participants expressed reluctance to register those without documentation, often introducing additional hurdles or requirements in their everyday practice. Two explanatory themes were generated: that those without documents were perceived as burdensome, and/or that moral judgements were made about their deservedness to finite resources. Participants described a context of high workload and insufficient funding. Some felt that GP services should be restricted by immigration status, as is widespread in secondary care. CONCLUSION: Improving inclusive registration practice requires addressing staff concerns, supporting navigation of high workloads, tackling financial disincentives to registering transient groups, and challenging narratives that undocumented migrants represent a 'threat' to NHS resources. Furthermore, it is imperative to acknowledge and address upstream drivers, in this instance the Hostile Environment.

What does the literature mean by social prescribing? A critical review using discourse analysis.

Social prescribing (SP) seeks to enhance the role of the voluntary and community sector in addressing patients' complex needs in primary care. Using discourse analysis, this review investigates how SP is framed in the scientific literature and explores its consequences for service delivery. Theory driven searches identified 89 academic articles and grey literature that included both qualitative and quantitative evidence. Across the literature three main discourses were identified. The first one emphasised increasing social inequalities behind escalating health problems and presented SP as a response to the social determinants of health. The second one problematised people's increasing use of health services and depicted SP as a means of enhancing self-care. The third one stressed the dearth of human and relational dimensions in general practice and claimed that SP could restore personalised care. Discourses circulated unevenly in the scientific literature, conditioned by a wider political rationality which emphasised individual responsibility and framed SP as 'solution' to complex and contentious problems. Critically, this contributed to an oversimplification of the realities of the problems being addressed and the delivery of SP. We propose an alternative 'care-based' framing of SP which prioritises (and evaluates) holistic, sustained and accessible practices within strengthened primary care systems.

A qualitative evaluation of Southwark Council's public health response to mitigating the mental health impact of the 2017 London bridge and borough market terror attack.

BACKGROUND: Over recent years there have been several major terror attacks in cities across Europe. These attacks result in deaths, physical injuries, and pose long-term threats to mental health and wellbeing of large populations. Although psychologists have completed important work on mental health responses to disaster exposure including terrorist attacks, the mental health impacts of such attacks have been comparatively less examined in academic literature than the acute health response to physical injuries. This paper reflects on Southwark Council's pioneering public mental health response to the June 2017 terror attack at London Bridge and Borough Market. It aims to explore perceptions of the mental health impact of the incident by those living and working in the borough. METHODS: A rapid qualitative evaluation informed by the logic underpinning Southwark Council's response was conducted. Seven formative interviews were undertaken with individuals involved in the response planning and/or delivery, enabling the evaluation team to establish the response's theoretical basis. Subsequently, nineteen semi-structured interviews with consenting Council employees, residents, business owners, and workers from the Borough were conducted to understand perceived mental health impacts of the attack and the success of the Council response. Thematic analysis of transcribed interviews was undertaken to evaluate the extent to which the response was implemented successfully. RESULTS: Participants reported feeling the attack had a wide-reaching negative impact on the mental health of residents, those working in the borough and visitors who witnessed the attack. Delivering the response was a challenge and response visibility within the community was limited. Participants suggested a comprehensive systematic approach to health needs assessment informed by knowledge and relationships of key Council workers and community stakeholders is imperative when responding to terrorist incidents. Improved communication and working relationships between statutory organisations and community stakeholders would ensure community groups are better supported. Prioritising mental health needs of terror attack responders to mitigate persisting negative impacts was highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: This article highlights a potential public health approach and need for developing robust practical guidance in the aftermath of terror attacks. This approach has already influenced the response to the Christchurch mosque shooting in 2019.

Tensions and opportunities in social prescribing. Developing a framework to facilitate its implementation and evaluation in primary care: a realist review.

BACKGROUND: Social prescribing (SP) involves linking patients in primary care with services provided by the voluntary and community sector (VCS). Despite growing interest within NHS primary care, it remains unclear how and under what circumstances SP might contribute to good practice. AIM: To define 'good' practice in SP by identifying context-specific enablers and tensions. To contribute to the development of an evidence-based framework for theorising and evaluating SP within primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: Realist review of secondary data from primary care-based SP schemes. METHOD: Academic articles and grey literature were searched for qualitative and quantitative evidence following the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses - Evolving Standards (RAMESES). Common SP practices were characterised in three settings (general practice, link workers, and community sector) using archetypes that ranged from best to worst practice. RESULTS: A total of 140 studies were included for analysis. Resources were identified influencing the type and potential impact of SP practices and four dimensions were outlined in which opportunities for good practice arise: 1) individual characteristics (stakeholder's buy-in, vocation, and knowledge); 2) interpersonal relations (trustful, bidirectional, informed, supportive, and transparent and convenient interactions within and across sectors); 3) organisational contingencies (the availability of a predisposed practice culture, leadership, training opportunities, supervision, information governance, resource adequacy, accessibility, and continuity of care within organisations); and 4) policy structures (bottom-up and coherent policymaking, stable funding, and suitable monitoring strategies). Findings were synthesised in a multilevel, dynamic, and usable SP framework. CONCLUSION: The realist review and resulting framework revealed that SP is not inherently advantageous. Specific individual, interpersonal, organisational, and policy resources are needed to ensure SP best practice in primary care.

Could social prescribing contribute to type 2 diabetes prevention in people at high risk? Protocol for a realist, multilevel, mixed methods review and evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Social prescribing is an innovation being widely adopted within the UK National Health Service policy as a way of improving the management of people with long-term conditions, such as type 2 diabetes (T2D). It generally involves linking patients in primary care with non-medical community-based interventions. Despite widespread national support, evidence for the effectiveness of social prescribing is both insufficient and contested. In this study, we will investigate whether social prescribing can contribute to T2D prevention and, if so, when, how and in what circumstances it might best be introduced. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will draw on realist evaluation to investigate the complex interpersonal, organisational, social and policy contexts in which social prescribing relevant to T2D prevention is implemented. We will set up a stakeholder group to advise us throughout the study, which will be conducted over three interconnected stages. In stage 1, we will undertake a realist review to synthesise the current evidence base for social prescribing. In stage 2, we will investigate how social prescribing relevant to people at high risk of T2D 'works' in a multiethnic, socioeconomically diverse community and any interactions with existing T2D prevention services using qualitative, quantitative and realist methods. In stage 3 and building on previous stages, we will synthesise a 'transferable framework' that will guide implementation and evaluation of social prescribing relevant to T2D prevention at scale. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: National Health Service ethics approval has been granted (reference 20/LO/0713). This project will potentially inform the adaptation of social prescribing services to better meet the needs of people at high risk of T2D in socioeconomically deprived areas. Findings may also be transferable to other long-term conditions. Dissemination will be undertaken as a continuous process, supported by the stakeholder group. Tailored outputs will target the following audiences: (1) service providers and commissioners; (2) people at high risk of T2D and community stakeholders; and (3) policy and strategic decision makers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020196259.

Improving the relevance of randomised trials to primary care: a qualitative study investigating views towards pragmatic trials and the PRECIS-2 tool.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic trials have been suggested as a way to improve the relevance of clinical trial results to practice. PRECIS-2 (Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2) is a trial design tool which considers how pragmatic a trial is across a number of domains. It is not known whether a pragmatic approach to all PRECIS-2 domains leads to results being more relevant to primary care. The aim of this study was to investigate the views of people with influence on primary care practice towards the design of randomised trials, pragmatic approaches to trial design, and the PRECIS-2 domains. METHODS: We carried out semi-structured interviews with people who influence practice in primary care in the UK. A thematic analysis was undertaken using the framework approach. RESULTS: We conducted individual or small group interviews involving an elite sample of 17 individuals. We found that an exclusively pragmatic approach to randomised trials may not always make the results of trials more applicable to primary care. For example, it may be better to have less flexibility in the way interventions are delivered in randomised trials than in practice. In addition, an appropriate balance needs to be struck when thinking about levels of resourcing and the intensity of steps needed to improve adherence in a trial. Across other aspects of a trial's design, for example the population and trial setting, a pragmatic approach was viewed as more appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: To maximize the relevance of research directed at primary care, trials should be conducted with the same populations and settings that are found in primary care. Across other aspects of trials it is not always necessary to match the conditions found in practice.

Socio-cultural influences on the behaviour of South Asian women with diabetes in pregnancy: qualitative study using a multi-level theoretical approach.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes in pregnancy is common in South Asians, especially those from low-income backgrounds, and leads to short-term morbidity and longer-term metabolic programming in mother and offspring. We sought to understand the multiple influences on behaviour (hence risks to metabolic health) of South Asian mothers and their unborn child, theorise how these influences interact and build over time, and inform the design of culturally congruent, multi-level interventions. METHODS: Our sample for this qualitative study was 45 women of Bangladeshi, Indian, Sri Lankan, or Pakistani origin aged 21-45 years with a history of diabetes in pregnancy, recruited from diabetes and antenatal services in two deprived London boroughs. Overall, 17 women shared their experiences of diabetes, pregnancy, and health services in group discussions and 28 women gave individual narrative interviews, facilitated by multilingual researchers, audiotaped, translated, and transcribed. Data were analysed using the constant comparative method, drawing on sociological and narrative theories. RESULTS: Key storylines (over-arching narratives) recurred across all ethnic groups studied. Short-term storylines depicted the experience of diabetic pregnancy as stressful, difficult to control, and associated with negative symptoms, especially tiredness. Taking exercise and restricting diet often worsened these symptoms and conflicted with advice from relatives and peers. Many women believed that exercise in pregnancy would damage the fetus and drain the mother's strength, and that eating would be strength-giving for mother and fetus. These short-term storylines were nested within medium-term storylines about family life, especially the cultural, practical, and material constraints of the traditional South Asian wife and mother role and past experiences of illness and healthcare, and within longer-term storylines about genetic, cultural, and material heritage - including migration, acculturation, and family memories of food insecurity. While peer advice was familiar, meaningful, and morally resonant, health education advice from clinicians was usually unfamiliar and devoid of cultural meaning. CONCLUSIONS: 'Behaviour change' interventions aimed at preventing and managing diabetes in South Asian women before and during pregnancy are likely to be ineffective if delivered in a socio-cultural vacuum. Individual education should be supplemented with community-level interventions to address the socio-material constraints and cultural frames within which behavioural 'choices' are made.

Making information 'relevant': general practitioner judgments and the production of patient involvement.

Sociological work that has engaged with the issue of patient involvement in health care suggests it needs to be recognised that decision-making is not simply an individual cognitive act contained in a single consultation, but a process that is distributed across multiple encounters in relation to a range of agents and non-human actors. Drawing on such conceptualisations of decision-making, and based on semi-structured interviews with 24 General Practitioners (GPs) in the United Kingdom about the prescription of statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, this paper explores the preemptive work that GPs perform when attempting to achieve patient involvement in healthcare decisions. The paper identifies a set of repertoires through which they evaluate and coordinate often contradictory forms of knowledge, transforming them into information that they think is relevant to patients, and which will potentially facilitate meaningful involvement in healthcare decisions. The study concludes by suggesting that such fluid and context sensitive practices are a necessary strategy for navigating complex health environments, which can be justified and underpinned by a relational model of autonomy. However, work needs to be done to explore how such judgments can be calibrated to mesh with the decision-making preferences of patients and what new approaches and standards for practice this would require.

Entangled complexity: why complex interventions are just not complicated enough.

The shift of health care burden from acute to chronic conditions is strongly linked to lifestyle and behaviour. As a consequence, health services are attempting to develop strategies and interventions that can attend to the complex interactions of social and biological factors that shape both. In this paper we trace one of the most influential incarnations of this 'turn to the complex': the Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance on developing and evaluating complex interventions. Through an analysis of the key publications, and drawing on social scientific approaches to what might constitute complexity in this context, we suggest that such initiatives need to adjust their conceptualisation of 'the complex'. We argue that complexity needs to be understood as a dynamic, ecological system rather than a stable, albeit complicated, arrangement of individual elements. Crucially, in contrast to the experimental logic embedded in the MRC guidance, we question whether the Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) is the most appropriate method through which to engage with complexity and establish reliable evidence of the effectiveness of complex interventions.

Impact on decisions to start or continue medicines of providing information to patients about possible benefits and/or harms: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of providing information about medicines to patients on decisions about starting or continuing them is unknown. PURPOSE: To estimate the impact on decisions to start or continue medicines, of providing information to patients about possible benefits and/or harms. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches from 1980 to October 2010; reference and citation searches of included studies. STUDY SELECTION: Two investigators assessed studies' eligibility against inclusion criteria: randomized or pseudorandomized trials; participants older than 16 years and deciding for themselves; one group received information about possible benefits and/or harms of a potentially beneficial medicine, compared with another who did not; d) a measure of decision about starting or continuing a medicine. DATA EXTRACTION: One investigator extracted all data, checked by a second. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight studies were included, covering a range of medicines. There was no consistent impact of interventions on decisions about whether to start or continue medicines (pooled odds ratio 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-1.70; P = 0.74). Among those who received more information, knowledge was increased (pooled mean difference 8.47; 95% CI 2.17-14.77; P = 0.008), and decisional conflict was reduced (pooled mean difference -0.15; 95% CI -0.24 to -0.06; P = .001). LIMITATIONS: A small number of studies across different clinical contexts, of uncertain heterogeneity, were included. CONCLUSIONS: Providing information to patients about possible benefits and/or harms has no consistent effect on the number who decide to start or continue medicines, although it increases patients' knowledge and reduces their decisional conflict.