Social prescribing for children and youth: A scoping review protocol.

Social prescribing is suited to all age groups, but it is especially important for children and youth, as it is well understood that this population is particularly vulnerable to the effects of the social determinants of health and health inequities, and that intervening at this stage of life has the greatest impact on health and wellbeing over the life course. While this population has largely been neglected in social prescribing research, policy, and practice, several evaluations of social prescribing for children and youth have emerged in recent years, which calls for a review of the evidence on this topic. Thus, the objective of this scoping review is to map the evidence on the use of social prescribing for children and youth. This review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and will be reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished literature. No language or date restrictions will be placed on the search. The databases to be searched include MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), AMED (Ovid), ASSIA (ProQuest), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), Global Health (Ovid), Web of Science (Clarivate), Epistemonikos, JBI EBP Database (Ovid), and Cochrane Library. Sources of gray literature to be searched include Google, Google Scholar, Social Care Online (Social Care Institute for Excellence), SIREN Evidence and Resource Library (Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network), and websites of social prescribing organizations and networks. Additionally, a request for evidence sources will be sent out to members of the Global Social Prescribing Alliance. Two independent reviewers will perform title and abstract screening, retrieval and assessment of full-text evidence sources, and data extraction. Data analysis will consist of basic descriptive analysis. Results will be presented in tabular and/or diagrammatic format alongside a narrative summary.

PROTOCOL: Effects of social prescribing for older adults: An evidence and gap map.

Objectives This is the protocol for an evidence and gap map. The objectives are as follows: The aim of this evidence and gap map is to map the available evidence on the effectiveness of social prescribing interventions addressing a non-medical, health-related social need for older adults in any setting. Specific objectives are as follows: 1.To identify existing evidence from primary studies and systematic reviews on the effects of community-based interventions that address non-medical, health-related social needs of older adults to improve their health and wellbeing.2.To identify research evidence gaps for new high-quality primary studies and systematic reviews.3.To highlight evidence of health equity considerations from included primary studies and systematic reviews.

The Impact of Health Geography on Public Health Research, Policy, and Practice in Canada.

The link between geography and health means that the places we occupy-where we are born, where we live, where we work, and where we play-have a direct impact on our health, including our experiences of health. A subdiscipline of human geography, health geography studies the relationships between our environments and the impact of factors that operate within those environments on human health. Researchers have focused on the social and physical environments, including spatial location, patterns, causes of disease and related outcomes, and health service delivery. The work of health geographers has adopted various theories and philosophies (i.e., positivism, social interactionism, structuralism) and methods to collect and analyze data (i.e., quantitative, qualitative, spatial analysis) to examine our environments and their relationship to health. The field of public health is an organized effort to promote the health of its population and prevent disease, injury, and premature death. Public health agencies and practitioners develop programs, services, and policies to promote healthy environments to support and enable health. This commentary provides an overview of the recent landscape of health geography and makes a case for how health geography is critically important to the field of public health, including examples from the field to highlight these links in practice.

Establishing internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing through expert consensus: a Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to establish internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing. DESIGN: A three-round Delphi study was conducted. SETTING: This study was conducted virtually using an online survey platform. PARTICIPANTS: This study involved an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts. The expert panel (n=48) represented 26 countries across five continents, numerous expert groups and a variety of years of experience with social prescribing, with the average being 5 years (range=1-20 years). RESULTS: After three rounds, internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing were established. The definitions were transformed into the Common Understanding of Social Prescribing (CUSP) conceptual framework. CONCLUSION: This foundational work offers a common thread-a shared sense of what social prescribing is, which may be woven into social prescribing research, policy and practice to foster common understanding of this concept.

PROTOCOL: In-person interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness: An evidence and gap map.

This is the protocol for an evidence and gap map. The objectives are as follows: This EGM aims to map available evidence on the effects of in-person interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness across all age groups in all settings.

Social Prescribing Outcomes for Trials (SPOT): Protocol for a modified Delphi study on core outcomes.

PURPOSE: This is a study protocol to co-create with knowledge users a core outcome set focused on middle-aged and older adults (40 years+) for use in social prescribing research. METHODS: We will follow the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) guide and use modified Delphi methods, including collating outcomes reported in social prescribing publications, online surveys, and discussion with our team to finalize the core outcome set. We intentionally center this work on people who deliver and receive social prescribing and include methods to evaluate collaboration. Our three-part process includes: (1) identifying published systematic reviews on social prescribing for adults to extract reported outcomes; and (2) up to three rounds of online surveys to rate the importance of outcomes for social prescribing. For this part, we will invite people (n = 240) who represent the population experienced in social prescribing, including researchers, members of social prescribing organizations, and people who receive social prescribing and their caregivers. Finally, we will (3) convene a virtual team meeting to discuss and rank the findings and finalize the core outcome set and our knowledge mobilization plan. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study designed to use a modified Delphi method to co-create core outcomes for social prescribing. Development of a core outcome set contributes to improved knowledge synthesis via consistency in measures and terminology. We aim to develop guidance for future research, and specifically on the use of core outcomes for social prescribing at the person/patient, provider, program, and societal-level.

Older adults and social prescribing experience, outcomes, and processes: a meta-aggregation systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Social prescribing is a complex care model, which aims to address unmet non-medical needs and connect people to community resources. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize available evidence from qualitative methods (e.g. interviews or focus groups) on experience, outcomes, and processes for social prescribing and older adults (from the person or provider level). STUDY DESIGN: This was a systematic review using the Joanna Brigg's meta-aggregative approach. METHODS: We searched multiple online databases for peer-reviewed studies, which included older adults aged ≥60 years (group mean age) and social prescribing experience, outcomes, or processes. We included all qualitative or mixed methods designs from all years and languages. Date of the last primary search was March 24, 2022. Two authors used online software to conduct the screening independently and then decided on the final list of included studies via notes and online discussion. RESULTS: We screened 376 citations (after duplicates) and included eight publications. There were 197 older adult participants (59% women), and many people were living with chronic health conditions. Few details were provided for participants' ethnicity, education, and related factors. We created five synthesized findings related to (1) the approach of social prescribing; implementation factors such as (2) relationships, (3) behavior change strategies, and (4) the environment; and (5) older adults' perceived health and psychosocial outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited number of available studies, data provide an overview of people and processes involved with social prescribing, identified research and practice gaps, and possible next steps for implementing and evaluating social prescribing for older adults in primary care.

Establishing Internationally Accepted Conceptual and Operational Definitions of Social Prescribing Through Expert Consensus: A Delphi Study Protocol.

Introduction: There is currently no agreed definition of social prescribing. This is problematic for research, policy, and practice, as the use of common language is the crux of establishing a common understanding. Both conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing are needed to address this gap. Therefore, the aim of the study that is outlined in this protocol is to establish internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing. Methodology: A Delphi study will be conducted to develop internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing with an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts. It is anticipated that this study will involve approximately 40 participants (range = 20-60 participants) and consist of 3-5 rounds. Consensus will be defined a priori as ≥80% agreement. Discussion: Not only will these definitions serve to unite the social prescribing community, but they will also inform research, policy, and practice. By laying the groundwork for the formation of a robust evidence base, this foundational work will support the advancement of social prescribing and help to unlock the full potential of the social prescribing movement. Conclusion: This important work will be foundational and timely, given the rapid spread of the social prescribing movement around the world.

Social Prescribing in Canada: A Tool for Integrating Health and Social Care for Underserved Communities.

Social prescribing is a practical tool for addressing the social determinants of health through supported referrals to community services. This globally spreading intervention aims to meet the needs of underserved populations and to better link health and social care organizations by supporting self-management and connecting participants to non-clinical supports in their communities, such as food and income support, parks and walking groups, arts activities and friendly visiting. This paper describes the current state of social prescribing in Canada, provides an overview of the Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing and offers an introduction to processes and resources for initiating social prescribing interventions.

Digital inclusion, online participation and health promotion: promising practices from community-led participatory journalism.

A growing body of evidence demonstrates that digital inclusion mediates access to other social determinants of health - directly, through access to and literacy in technologies or services, and indirectly, by supporting people's capacity to participate fully and equitably in civic and cultural life online. Novel approaches to community-led participatory journalism, in which people from equity-deserving communities are supported to tell their own stories, suggest promising practices for online civic engagement as an emerging approach to promoting health though digital inclusion.

Is equity considered in systematic reviews of interventions for mitigating social isolation and loneliness in older adults?

BACKGROUND: Social isolation and loneliness affect one in four older adults in many regions around the world. Social isolation and loneliness are shown to be associated with declines in physical and mental health. Intersecting social determinants of health influence both the risk of being socially isolated and lonely as well as the access and uptake of interventions. Our objective is to evaluate what evidence is available within systematic reviews on how to mitigate inequities in access to and effectiveness of interventions. METHODS: We performed an overview of reviews following methods of the Cochrane Handbook for Overviews of Reviews. We selected systematic reviews of effectiveness of interventions aimed at mitigating social isolation and loneliness in older adults (aged 60 or above) published in the last 10 years. In addition, we assessed all primary studies from the most recent systematic review with a broad intervention focus. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus in collaboration with a librarian scientist. We used a structured framework called PROGRESS-Plus to assess the reporting and consideration of equity. PROGRESS-Plus stands for place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status (SES), social capital, while "plus" stands for additional factors associated with discrimination and exclusion such as age, disability, and sexual orientation. We assessed whether PROGRESS-Plus factors were reported in description of the population, examination of differential effects, or discussion of applicability or limitations. RESULTS: We identified and assessed 17 eligible systematic reviews. We assessed all 23 primary studies from the most recent systematic review with a broad intervention focus. All systematic reviews and primary studies described the population by one or more PROGRESS-Plus factor, most commonly across place of residence and age, respectively. None of the reviews and five primary studies examined differential effects across one or more PROGRESS-Plus dimension. Nine reviews and four primary studies discussed applicability or limitations of their findings by at least one PROGRESS-Plus factor. CONCLUSIONS: Although we know that social isolation and loneliness are worse for the poorest and most socially disadvantaged older adults, the existing evidence base lacks details on how to tailor interventions for these socially disadvantaged older people.

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

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).

Global developments in social prescribing.

Social prescribing is an approach that aims to improve health and well-being. It connects individuals to non-clinical services and supports that address social needs, such as those related to loneliness, housing instability and mental health. At the person level, social prescribing can give individuals the knowledge, skills, motivation and confidence to manage their own health and well-being. At the society level, it can facilitate greater collaboration across health, social, and community sectors to promote integrated care and move beyond the traditional biomedical model of health. While the term social prescribing was first popularised in the UK, this practice has become more prevalent and widely publicised internationally over the last decade. This paper aims to illuminate the ways social prescribing has been conceptualised and implemented across 17 countries in Europe, Asia, Australia and North America. We draw from the 'Beyond the Building Blocks' framework to describe the essential inputs for adopting social prescribing into policy and practice, related to service delivery; social determinants and household production of health; workforce; leadership and governance; financing, community organisations and societal partnerships; health technology; and information, learning and accountability. Cross-cutting lessons can inform country and regional efforts to tailor social prescribing models to best support local needs.

Using self-determination theory to understand the social prescribing process: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Social prescribing (SP) assists patients to engage in social activities and connect to community supports as part of a holistic approach to primary care. Rx: Community was a SP project, which was implemented within 11 community health centres (CHCs) situated across Ontario, Canada. AIM: To explore how SP as a process facilitates positive outcomes for patients. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative methods were used. Eighteen focus groups were conducted at CHCs or by video-conferencing, and involved 88 patients. In addition, eight in-depth telephone interviews were undertaken. METHOD: Interviews and focus groups were transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically using a theoretical framework based on self-determination theory (SDT). RESULTS: Participants who had received social prescriptions described SP as an empathetic process that respects their needs and interests. SP facilitated the patient's voice in their care, helped patients to develop skills in addressing needs important to them, and fostered trusting relationships with staff and other participants. Patients reported their social support networks were expanded, and they had improved mental health and ability in self-management of chronic conditions. Patients who became involved in SP as voluntary 'health champions' reported this was a positive experience and they gained a sense of purpose by giving back to their communities in ways that felt meaningful for them. CONCLUSION: SP produced positive outcomes for patients, and it fits well within the community health centre model of primary care. Future research should examine the impact on health outcomes and examine the return on investment of developing and implementing SP programmes.

Delivering primary health care as envisioned: A model of health and well-being guiding community-governed primary care organizations.

PURPOSE: For over 40 years, Canadian and international bodies have endorsed comprehensive primary health care (PHC), yet very little work has been done to describe how services and programs are delivered within these organizations. Because health equity is now of greater interest to policy makers and the public, it is important to describe an evidence-informed framework for the delivery of integrated and equitable PHC. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development of a "Model of Health and Well-being" (MHWB) that provides a roadmap to the delivery of PHC in a successful network of community-governed PHC organizations in Ontario, Canada. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The MHWB was developed through an iterative process that involved members of community-governed PHC organizations in Ontario and key stakeholders. This included literature review and consultation to ensure that the model was evidence informed and reflected actual practice. FINDINGS: The MHWB has three guiding principles: highest quality health and well-being for people and communities; health equity and social justice; and community vitality and belonging. In addition, there are eight attributes that describe how services are provided. There is a reasonable evidence base underpinning the all principles and attributes. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: As comprehensive, equitable PHC organizations become increasingly recognized as critical parts of the health care system, it is important to have a means to describe their approach to care and the values that drive their care. The MHWB provides a blueprint for comprehensive PHC as delivered by over 100 Community Governed Primary Health Care (CGPHC) organizations in Ontario. All CGPHC organizations have endorsed, adopted and operationalized this model as a guide for optimum care delivery.

A Census of Midsize to Large Supermarkets in Toronto: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the Consumer Nutrition Environment.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the consumer nutrition environment in midsize to large supermarkets by supermarket type and area-level socioeconomic variables. DESIGN: Cross-sectional census of 257 supermarkets using the Toronto Nutrition Environment Measures Survey in Stores. SETTING: Toronto, Canada. VARIABLES MEASURED: Availability; price and linear shelf space of fruits and vegetables vs energy-dense snack foods by supermarket type; after-tax, low-income measure; and neighborhood improvement area. ANALYSIS: Multivariate linear regression. RESULTS: There was a high availability of fruits (7.7 of 8) and vegetables (9.5 of 11). There was similar linear shelf space for fruits and vegetables vs energy-dense snack foods (ratio, 1.1 m). Adjusted fruit prices were lowest in quintiles 1 (ß = -$1.30; P = .008), 2 (ß = -$1.41; P = .005), and 3 (ß = -$1.89; P < .001) vs quintile 5 (lowest percentage of people living with low income) and in ethnic (ß = -$3.47; P < .001) and discount stores (ß = -$5.64; P < .001) vs conventional. Adjusted vegetable prices were lowest in quintiles 2 (ß = -$1.87; P = .04), 3 (ß = -$1.78; P = .03), and 4 (ß = -$2.65; P = .001) vs quintile 5 and in ethnic (ß = -$7.10; P < .001) and discount (ß = -$5.49; P < .001) stores. They were highest in other (ß = + $3.08; P = .003) vs conventional stores. Adjusted soda and chips prices were lower in discount (ß = -$1.16; P < .001) and higher in other stores (ß = + $0.67; P < .001) vs conventional. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Findings do not indicate inequities in shelf space, availability, or price across diverse neighborhoods. Practitioners can use findings to help consumers navigate supermarkets to make healthy choices.