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.

社会处方数据和结果记录实践:基于访谈的利物浦城市地区社会处方利益相关者的意见和经验研究,英国
背景:社会处方(SP)是一种通过非临床卫生保健干预减少健康不平等的全系统方法。本研究的目的是探讨社会福利计划所采取的做法,以及与社会福利计划/计划内部和之间的数据收集和信息利用有关的各种利益相关者所持有的意见。方法:对利物浦城市地区(LCR)内参与SP规划和交付的9个利益相关者进行了半结构化访谈,包括SP链接工人,服务经理和专员。采用演绎主题分析方法对文本进行分析。结果:确定了与定量数据记录,定性数据记录和数据利用有关的三个主题。访谈揭示了利益相关者之间在系统和数据收集一致性方面的相当大的差异。虽然一些数据是通过现有的结果测量工具收集的,但对其在SP中使用的充分性提出了批评。案例研究和定性反馈(正式的和非正式的)被更频繁地使用,并被认为在获取影响方面更有效。数据共享的优势包括创建数据情报,为更有针对性的服务提供信息。缺乏有关SP数据收集和结果记录的国家指导知识。结论:需要进一步研究在专员报告系统中纳入更多sp特定指标的可接受性,包括正式承认对现有的定量健康不平等指标或关键绩效指标进行定性影响报告。但是,这对现有结构的负担需要加以评估。对数据联系安排和数据记录过程的支持,加上更广泛的常规结果数据记录,可以支持采取有针对性的办法,增加社会福利方案对健康和福祉影响的证据基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信