↓ Skip to main content

What approaches to social prescribing work, for whom, and in what circumstances? A protocol for a realist review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, June 2016
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
51 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
199 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
What approaches to social prescribing work, for whom, and in what circumstances? A protocol for a realist review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0269-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kerryn Husk, Kelly Blockley, Rebecca Lovell, Alison Bethel, Dan Bloomfield, Sara Warber, Mark Pearson, Iain Lang, Richard Byng, Ruth Garside

Abstract

The use of non-drug, non-health-service interventions has been proposed as a cost-effective alternative to help those with long-term conditions manage their illness and improve their health and well-being. Interventions typically involve accessing activities run by the third sector or community agencies and may also be described as non-medical referral, community referral or social prescribing. To be effective, patients need to be "transferred" from the primary care setting into the community and to maintain their participation in activities. However, it is not currently known how and why these approaches enable which people under what circumstances to reach community services that may benefit their health and well-being. Database searches and extensive searching of grey sources will be carried out in an attempt to find evidence associated with referral and retention in social prescribing. After initial scoping searches, two main phases of searching will be conducted: (a) will focus on the identification of programme theories to illustrate how approaches to social prescribing work for different people and in different contexts and (b) will consist of targeted searches to locate evidence to refine these candidate theories into configurations of the contexts in which populations and the main mechanisms outcomes are achieved. Inclusion criteria will initially be broad in order to develop a clear picture of the ways in which social prescriptions might operate but may iteratively become more focused in response to initially identified evidence, for example, in terms of the population group. An expert advisory group consisting of professionals working in a range of organisations involved in social prescribing will be convened to check the approaches in the review and provide real-life experience of social prescribing. Findings from the review will be disseminated to commissioners, published in a peer-reviewed journal and used to help refine an intervention model for an outdoor nature-based group intervention. This realist review will explore why mechanisms of social prescribing work, for what groups of people and their impact on enrolment, attendance and adherence to programmes. The use of realist approaches to detail the social prescribing process is novel and will offer insights into effective transfer of patients. PROSPERO CRD42016039491.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 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 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 198 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 35 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 17%
Student > Master 32 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Student > Postgraduate 12 6%
Other 36 18%
Unknown 38 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 21%
Social Sciences 36 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 16%
Psychology 16 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 4%
Other 21 11%
Unknown 45 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 22 November 2019.
All research outputs
#593,013
of 20,113,314 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#76
of 1,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,780
of 279,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,113,314 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,774 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. 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 279,409 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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 99% of its contemporaries.