Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Facilitators and barriers of implementing and delivering social prescribing services: a systematic review

Authors: Julia Vera Pescheny, Yannis Pappas, Gurch Randhawa

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Social Prescribing is a service in primary care that involves the referral of patients with non-clinical needs to local services and activities provided by the third sector (community, voluntary, and social enterprise sector). Social Prescribing aims to promote partnership working between the health and the social sector to address the wider determinants of health. To date, there is a weak evidence base for Social Prescribing services. The objective of the review was to identify factors that facilitate and hinder the implementation and delivery of SP services based in general practice involving a navigator.

Methods

We searched eleven databases, the grey literature, and the reference lists of relevant studies to identify the barriers and facilitators to the implementation and delivery of Social Prescribing services in June and July 2016. Searches were limited to literature written in English. No date restrictions were applied. Findings were synthesised narratively, employing thematic analysis. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool Version 2011 was used to evaluate the methodological quality of included studies.

Results

Eight studies were included in the review. The synthesis identified a range of factors that facilitate and hinder the implementation and delivery of SP services. Facilitators and barriers were related to: the implementation approach, legal agreements, leadership, management and organisation, staff turnover, staff engagement, relationships and communication between partners and stakeholders, characteristics of general practices, and the local infrastructure. The quality of most included studies was poor and the review identified a lack of published literature on factors that facilitate and hinder the implementation and delivery of Social Prescribing services.

Conclusion

The review identified a range of factors that facilitate and hinder the implementation and delivery of Social Prescribing services. Findings of this review provide an insight for commissioners, managers, and providers to guide the implementation and delivery of future Social Prescribing services. More high quality research and transparent reporting of findings is needed in this field.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Marmot M, Allen J, Goldblatt P, Boyce T, McNeish D, Grady M, et al. Fair society, healthy lives. England: The Marmot Review; 2010. Marmot M, Allen J, Goldblatt P, Boyce T, McNeish D, Grady M, et al. Fair society, healthy lives. England: The Marmot Review; 2010.
3.
go back to reference Kimberlee, R. Developing a social prescribing approach for Bristol. Project Report. Bristol Health & Wellbeing Board; 2013. Kimberlee, R. Developing a social prescribing approach for Bristol. Project Report. Bristol Health & Wellbeing Board; 2013.
4.
go back to reference Maughan DL, Patel A, Parveen T, Braithwaite I, Cook J, Lillywhite R, et al. Primary-care-based social prescribing for mental health: an analysis of financial and environmental sustainability. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2016;17:114–21.CrossRefPubMed Maughan DL, Patel A, Parveen T, Braithwaite I, Cook J, Lillywhite R, et al. Primary-care-based social prescribing for mental health: an analysis of financial and environmental sustainability. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2016;17:114–21.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference South J, Higgins TJ, Woodall J, White SM. Can social prescribing provide the missing link? Prim Heal Care Res Dev. 2008;9:310–8.CrossRef South J, Higgins TJ, Woodall J, White SM. Can social prescribing provide the missing link? Prim Heal Care Res Dev. 2008;9:310–8.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Brandling J, House W. Investigation into the feasibility of a social prescribing service in primary care: a pilot project. Bath: University of Bath; 2007. Brandling J, House W. Investigation into the feasibility of a social prescribing service in primary care: a pilot project. Bath: University of Bath; 2007.
7.
go back to reference Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Evidence to inform the commissioning of social prescribing. 2015. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Evidence to inform the commissioning of social prescribing. 2015.
8.
11.
go back to reference Kimberlee R, Ward R, Jones M, Powell J. Proving our value: measuring the economic impact of wellspring healthy living Centre’s social prescribing wellbeing programme for low level mental health issues encountered by GP services. Bristol: University of the West of England; 2014. Kimberlee R, Ward R, Jones M, Powell J. Proving our value: measuring the economic impact of wellspring healthy living Centre’s social prescribing wellbeing programme for low level mental health issues encountered by GP services. Bristol: University of the West of England; 2014.
12.
go back to reference Kinsella S. Social prescribing. A review of the evidence. Wirral: Wirral Council Business & Public Health Intelligence Team; 2015. Kinsella S. Social prescribing. A review of the evidence. Wirral: Wirral Council Business & Public Health Intelligence Team; 2015.
13.
go back to reference Thomson LJ, Camic PM, Chatterjee HJ. Social prescribing: a review of community referral schemes. London: University College London; 2015. Thomson LJ, Camic PM, Chatterjee HJ. Social prescribing: a review of community referral schemes. London: University College London; 2015.
14.
go back to reference Kilgarriff-Foster A, O’Cathain A. Exploring the components and impact of social prescribing. J Public Ment Health. 2015;14:127–34.CrossRef Kilgarriff-Foster A, O’Cathain A. Exploring the components and impact of social prescribing. J Public Ment Health. 2015;14:127–34.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmouth A, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ. 2000;321:694–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmouth A, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ. 2000;321:694–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions. UK Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance. MRC Population Health Science Research Network; 2014. Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions. UK Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance. MRC Population Health Science Research Network; 2014.
17.
go back to reference Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: a summary of Medical Research Council guidance. 2014. 1–17. Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: a summary of Medical Research Council guidance. 2014. 1–17.
18.
go back to reference Peters DH, Adam T, Alonge O, Agyepong IA, Tran N. Implementation research: what it is and how to do it. BMJ. 2013;347:f6753. Peters DH, Adam T, Alonge O, Agyepong IA, Tran N. Implementation research: what it is and how to do it. BMJ. 2013;347:f6753.
19.
go back to reference RAND Europe EYL. National evaluation of the Department of Health’s integrated care pilots. 2012. RAND Europe EYL. National evaluation of the Department of Health’s integrated care pilots. 2012.
20.
go back to reference Ling T, Brereton L, Conklin A, Newbould J, Roland M. Barriers and facilitators to integrating care: experiences from the English integrated care pilots. Int. J. Integr. Care. 2012;12:1–12.CrossRef Ling T, Brereton L, Conklin A, Newbould J, Roland M. Barriers and facilitators to integrating care: experiences from the English integrated care pilots. Int. J. Integr. Care. 2012;12:1–12.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol Psychol. 2008;41:327–50.CrossRef Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol Psychol. 2008;41:327–50.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181.
23.
go back to reference Rodgers M, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Roberts H, Britten N, et al. Testing methodological guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. Evaluation. 2009;15:47–71.CrossRef Rodgers M, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Roberts H, Britten N, et al. Testing methodological guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. Evaluation. 2009;15:47–71.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Popay J, Robers H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. 2006. Popay J, Robers H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. 2006.
26.
go back to reference Pope C, Mays N, Popay J. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative health evidence: a guide to methods. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2007. Pope C, Mays N, Popay J. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative health evidence: a guide to methods. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2007.
27.
go back to reference Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol United States. 2009;62:1006–12.CrossRef Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol United States. 2009;62:1006–12.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Polley M, Dixon M, Pilkington K, Ridge D, Herbert N, Fleming J, et al. Report of the annual social prescribing network conference. 2016. Polley M, Dixon M, Pilkington K, Ridge D, Herbert N, Fleming J, et al. Report of the annual social prescribing network conference. 2016.
29.
go back to reference Brandling J, House W, Howitt D, Sansom A. “New routes”: pilot research project of a new social prescribing service provided in Keynsham. 2011. Brandling J, House W, Howitt D, Sansom A. “New routes”: pilot research project of a new social prescribing service provided in Keynsham. 2011.
30.
go back to reference ERS Research and Consultancy. Newcastle social prescribing project final report august 2013. 2013. ERS Research and Consultancy. Newcastle social prescribing project final report august 2013. 2013.
31.
go back to reference Farenden C, Mitchell C, Feast S, Verdenicci S. Community navigation in Brighton & Hove. Evaluation of a social prescribing pilot. 2015. Farenden C, Mitchell C, Feast S, Verdenicci S. Community navigation in Brighton & Hove. Evaluation of a social prescribing pilot. 2015.
32.
go back to reference Friedli L, Themessl-huber M, Butchart M. Evaluation of Dundee equally well sources of support: social prescribing in Maryfield. 2012. Friedli L, Themessl-huber M, Butchart M. Evaluation of Dundee equally well sources of support: social prescribing in Maryfield. 2012.
33.
go back to reference The Health Foundation. Shine 2014 final report social prescribing: integrating GP and community assets for health. 2015. The Health Foundation. Shine 2014 final report social prescribing: integrating GP and community assets for health. 2015.
35.
go back to reference Dayson C, Bashir N, Pearson S. From dependence to independence: emerging lessons from the Rotherham social prescribing pilot. 2013. Dayson C, Bashir N, Pearson S. From dependence to independence: emerging lessons from the Rotherham social prescribing pilot. 2013.
36.
go back to reference Hjelmar U, Hendriksen C, Hansen K. Motivation to take part in integrated care - an assessment of follow-up home visits to elderly persons. Int J Integr Care. 2011;11:e122. Hjelmar U, Hendriksen C, Hansen K. Motivation to take part in integrated care - an assessment of follow-up home visits to elderly persons. Int J Integr Care. 2011;11:e122.
37.
go back to reference MacAdam M. Frameworks of integrated care for the Eederly: a systematic review. 2008. MacAdam M. Frameworks of integrated care for the Eederly: a systematic review. 2008.
38.
go back to reference Chaudoir SR, Dugan AG, Barr CH. Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures. Implement Sci. 2013;8:22. Chaudoir SR, Dugan AG, Barr CH. Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures. Implement Sci. 2013;8:22.
39.
go back to reference Mc Hugh S, O’Mullane M, Perry IJ, et al. Barriers to, and facilitators in, introducing integrated diabetes care in Ireland: a qualitative study of views in general practice. BMJ Open 2013;3:e003217. Mc Hugh S, O’Mullane M, Perry IJ, et al. Barriers to, and facilitators in, introducing integrated diabetes care in Ireland: a qualitative study of views in general practice. BMJ Open 2013;3:e003217.
Metadata
Title
Facilitators and barriers of implementing and delivering social prescribing services: a systematic review
Authors
Julia Vera Pescheny
Yannis Pappas
Gurch Randhawa
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2893-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Health Services Research 1/2018 Go to the issue