Back to Search Start Over

What is the best way to evaluate social prescribing? A qualitative feasibility assessment for a national impact evaluation study in England.

Authors :
Ayorinde, Abimbola
Grove, Amy
Ghosh, Iman
Harlock, Jenny
Meehan, Edward
Tyldesley-Marshall, Natalie
Briggs, Adam
Clarke, Aileen
Al-Khudairy, Lena
Source :
Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. Apr2024, Vol. 29 Issue 2, p111-121. 11p.
Publication Year :
2024

Abstract

Objectives: Despite significant investment in social prescribing in England over the last decade, we still do not know if it works, or how models of social prescribing fit within wider health and care policy and practice. This study explores current service delivery structures and assesses the feasibility of a national evaluation of the link worker model. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted between May and September 2020, with 25 key informants from across social prescribing services in England. Participants included link workers, voluntary, community and social enterprise staff, and those involved in policy and decision-making for social prescribing services. Interview and workshop transcripts were analysed thematically, adopting a framework approach. Results: We found differences in how services are provided, including by individual link workers, and between organisations and regions. Standards, referral pathways, reporting, and monitoring structures differ or are lacking in voluntary services as compared to clinical services. People can self-refer to a link worker or be referred by a third party, but the lack of standardised processes generated confusion in both public and professional perceptions of the link worker model. We identified challenges in determining the appropriate outcomes and outcome measures needed to assess the impact of the link worker model. Conclusions: The current varied service delivery structures in England poses major challenges for a national impact evaluation. Any future rigorous evaluation needs to be underpinned with national standardised outcomes and process measures which promote uniform data collection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
13558196
Volume :
29
Issue :
2
Database :
Academic Search Index
Journal :
Journal of Health Services Research & Policy
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
175824794
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1177/13558196231212854