Outcomes and instruments used in social prescribing: a modified umbrella review.

Autor:	Ashe MC; Department of Family Practice, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.; Edwin S.H. Leong Centre for Healthy Aging, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada., Dos Santos IK; Department of Physical Education, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brazil., Alfares H; Department of Family Practice, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.; Edwin S.H. Leong Centre for Healthy Aging, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada., Chudyk AM; College of Pharmacy, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada., Esfandiari E; Department of Family Practice, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.; Edwin S.H. Leong Centre for Healthy Aging, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jazyk:	English; French
Zdroj:	Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice [Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can] 2024 Jun; Vol. 44 (6), pp. 244-269.
DOI:	10.24095/hpcdp.44.6.02
Abstrakt:	Introduction: Previous social prescribing work highlights a range in the types and number of outcomes used in published studies. We aimed to describe social prescribing outcome core areas and instruments to build capacity for future research and program evaluation. Methods: This was a modified umbrella review following standard guidelines. We registered the study and searched multiple databases (all languages and years); inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed publications containing outcomes for self-described social prescribing for adults aged 18 years and older. The last search date was 9 July 2023. From the included systematic reviews, we identified primary studies using the same inclusion criteria. For primary studies, we sorted extracted outcomes and instruments into six core areas using a published taxonomy. We located information on instruments' description and measurement properties and conducted two rating rounds for (1) the quality of systematic reviews and (2) reporting of instruments in primary studies. We conducted a narrative synthesis of reviews, primary studies and outcomes (PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023434061). Results: We identified 10 systematic reviews and 33 primary studies for inclusion in our review. Outcomes covered most core taxonomy areas, with an emphasis on psychosocial factors (e.g. well-being) and less emphasis on cognition, physical activity, and caregivers and volunteers. We noted few studies provided detailed information on demographic data of participants or measurement properties of instruments. Conclusion: This synthesis provides an overview and identifies knowledge gaps for outcomes and instruments used in social prescribing interventions. This work forms the basis of our next step of identifying social prescribing-related outcomes that matter most across interested parties, such as individuals providers and decision makers. Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu