↓ Skip to main content

The impact of a social prescribing service on patients in primary care: a mixed methods evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
23 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
187 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The impact of a social prescribing service on patients in primary care: a mixed methods evaluation
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2778-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dawn Carnes, Ratna Sohanpal, Caroline Frostick, Sally Hull, Rohini Mathur, Gopalakrishnan Netuveli, Jin Tong, Patrick Hutt, Marcello Bertotti

Abstract

Social prescribing is targeted at isolated and lonely patients. Practitioners and patients jointly develop bespoke well-being plans to promote social integration and or social reactivation. Our aim was to investigate: whether a social prescribing service could be implemented in a general practice (GP) setting and to evaluate its effect on well-being and primary care resource use. We used a mixed method evaluation approach using patient surveys with matched control groups and a qualitative interview study. The study was conducted in a mixed socio-economic, multi-ethnic, inner city London borough with socially isolated patients who frequently visited their GP. The intervention was implemented by 'social prescribing coordinators'. Outcomes of interest were psychological and social well-being and health care resource use. At 8 months follow-up there were no differences between patients referred to social prescribing and the controls for general health, depression, anxiety and 'positive and active engagement in life'. Social prescribing patients had high GP consultation rates, which fell in the year following referral. The qualitative study indicated that most patients had a positive experience with social prescribing but the service was not utilised to its full extent. Changes in general health and well-being following referral were very limited and comprehensive implementation was difficult to optimise. Although GP consultation rates fell, these may have reflected regression to the mean rather than changes related to the intervention. Whether social prescribing can contribute to the health of a nation for social and psychological wellbeing is still to be determined.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 187 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 17%
Researcher 27 14%
Student > Bachelor 25 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 4%
Other 29 16%
Unknown 43 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 17%
Social Sciences 27 14%
Psychology 12 6%
Arts and Humanities 5 3%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 50 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 March 2021.
All research outputs
#919,604
of 18,873,384 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#268
of 6,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,369
of 424,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#31
of 565 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,873,384 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,358 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 424,131 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 565 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.