Social Prescribing Data and Outcome Recording Practices: An Interview-Based Study Into the Opinions and Experiences of Social Prescribing Stakeholders in the Liverpool City Region, UK

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
F. Wobi, C. E. Brett, R. Harrison, T. M. Kidd, H. Timpson
{"title":"Social Prescribing Data and Outcome Recording Practices: An Interview-Based Study Into the Opinions and Experiences of Social Prescribing Stakeholders in the Liverpool City Region, UK","authors":"F. Wobi,&nbsp;C. E. Brett,&nbsp;R. Harrison,&nbsp;T. M. Kidd,&nbsp;H. Timpson","doi":"10.1155/hsc/8094184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><b>Background:</b> Social prescribing (SP) is a system-wide approach to reducing health inequalities through nonclinical healthcare interventions. The aim of this study was to explore the practices undertaken and the opinions held by various stakeholders involved in SP in relation to data collection and information utilisation within and between SP programmes/schemes.</p>\n <p><b>Methods:</b> Semistructured interviews were conducted with nine stakeholders involved in SP planning and delivery within the Liverpool City Region (LCR), including SP link workers, service managers and commissioners. A deductive thematic analysis approach was used to analyse the transcripts.</p>\n <p><b>Results:</b> Three themes were identified pertaining to quantitative data recording, qualitative data recording and the utilisation of data. The interviews revealed considerable variations in systems and consistency of data collection among stakeholders. While some data were collected via existing outcome measurement tools, their adequacy for use within SP in particular was critiqued. Case studies and qualitative feedback (formal and informal) were more frequently used and were felt to be more effective in capturing impact. Strengths of data sharing included the creation of data intelligence to inform more targeted service provision. Knowledge of national guidance pertaining to SP data collection and outcome recording was lacking.</p>\n <p><b>Conclusion:</b> Further research on the acceptability of incorporating further SP-specific indicators within commissioner reporting systems is needed, including formal acknowledgement of qualitative impact reporting on existing, quantitative health inequality indicators or key performance indicators. However, the burden of this on existing structures needs to be assessed. Support for data linkage arrangements and data recording processes, combined with wider routine outcome data recording, can support a targeted approach to increasing the evidence base for SP’s impact on health and wellbeing.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48195,"journal":{"name":"Health & Social Care in the Community","volume":"2025 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/hsc/8094184","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health & Social Care in the Community","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/hsc/8094184","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Social prescribing (SP) is a system-wide approach to reducing health inequalities through nonclinical healthcare interventions. The aim of this study was to explore the practices undertaken and the opinions held by various stakeholders involved in SP in relation to data collection and information utilisation within and between SP programmes/schemes.

Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with nine stakeholders involved in SP planning and delivery within the Liverpool City Region (LCR), including SP link workers, service managers and commissioners. A deductive thematic analysis approach was used to analyse the transcripts.

Results: Three themes were identified pertaining to quantitative data recording, qualitative data recording and the utilisation of data. The interviews revealed considerable variations in systems and consistency of data collection among stakeholders. While some data were collected via existing outcome measurement tools, their adequacy for use within SP in particular was critiqued. Case studies and qualitative feedback (formal and informal) were more frequently used and were felt to be more effective in capturing impact. Strengths of data sharing included the creation of data intelligence to inform more targeted service provision. Knowledge of national guidance pertaining to SP data collection and outcome recording was lacking.

Conclusion: Further research on the acceptability of incorporating further SP-specific indicators within commissioner reporting systems is needed, including formal acknowledgement of qualitative impact reporting on existing, quantitative health inequality indicators or key performance indicators. However, the burden of this on existing structures needs to be assessed. Support for data linkage arrangements and data recording processes, combined with wider routine outcome data recording, can support a targeted approach to increasing the evidence base for SP’s impact on health and wellbeing.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
423
期刊介绍: Health and Social Care in the community is an essential journal for anyone involved in nursing, social work, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, general practice, health psychology, health economy, primary health care and the promotion of health. It is an international peer-reviewed journal supporting interdisciplinary collaboration on policy and practice within health and social care in the community. The journal publishes: - Original research papers in all areas of health and social care - Topical health and social care review articles - Policy and practice evaluations - Book reviews - Special issues
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信