Tensions and opportunities in social prescribing. Developing a framework to facilitate its implementation and evaluation in primary care: a realist review

Sara Calderón-Larrañaga; Yasmin Milner; Megan Clinch; Trisha Greenhalgh; Sarah Finer

doi:10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0017

Tensions and opportunities in social prescribing. Developing a framework to facilitate its implementation and evaluation in primary care: a realist review

BJGP Open. 2021 Jun 30;5(3):BJGPO.2021.0017. doi: 10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0017. Print 2021 Jun.

Authors

Sara Calderón-Larrañaga^{1

2}, Yasmin Milner^{3

4}, Megan Clinch³, Trisha Greenhalgh⁵, Sarah Finer^{3

4}

Affiliations

¹ Centre for Primary Care and Mental Health, Institute of Population Health Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK s.calderon@qmul.ac.uk.
² Bromley By Bow Health Partnership, London, UK.
³ Centre for Primary Care and Mental Health, Institute of Population Health Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
⁴ Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
⁵ Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Abstract

Background: Social prescribing (SP) involves linking patients in primary care with services provided by the voluntary and community sector (VCS). Despite growing interest within NHS primary care, it remains unclear how and under what circumstances SP might contribute to good practice.

Aim: To define 'good' practice in SP by identifying context-specific enablers and tensions. To contribute to the development of an evidence-based framework for theorising and evaluating SP within primary care.

Design & setting: Realist review of secondary data from primary care-based SP schemes.

Method: Academic articles and grey literature were searched for qualitative and quantitative evidence following the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses - Evolving Standards (RAMESES). Common SP practices were characterised in three settings (general practice, link workers, and community sector) using archetypes that ranged from best to worst practice.

Results: A total of 140 studies were included for analysis. Resources were identified influencing the type and potential impact of SP practices and four dimensions were outlined in which opportunities for good practice arise: 1) individual characteristics (stakeholder's buy-in, vocation, and knowledge); 2) interpersonal relations (trustful, bidirectional, informed, supportive, and transparent and convenient interactions within and across sectors); 3) organisational contingencies (the availability of a predisposed practice culture, leadership, training opportunities, supervision, information governance, resource adequacy, accessibility, and continuity of care within organisations); and 4) policy structures (bottom-up and coherent policymaking, stable funding, and suitable monitoring strategies). Findings were synthesised in a multilevel, dynamic, and usable SP framework.

Conclusion: The realist review and resulting framework revealed that SP is not inherently advantageous. Specific individual, interpersonal, organisational, and policy resources are needed to ensure SP best practice in primary care.

Keywords: general practice; health policy; primary health care; realist review; social prescribing.