Literature DB >> 36261835

Do people perceive benefits in the use of social prescribing to address loneliness and/or social isolation? A qualitative meta-synthesis of the literature.

M Liebmann1, A Pitman2, Yung-Chia Hsueh1, M Bertotti3, E Pearce1.   

Abstract

Social prescribing is a means by which clinical services can link individuals who have psychological, social and/or practical needs with non-clinical services within their local community. There is a lack of empirical evidence investigating whether social prescribing helps such individuals and which interventions are the most effective and accepted by them to address their loneliness. This meta-synthesis aimed to synthesise findings from qualitative studies exploring experiences of people (of any age) who participated in any social prescribing intervention aimed at loneliness and/or social isolation to ascertain whether they felt it helped address loneliness/isolation and the potential mechanisms by which this might occur. We conducted a systematic search of 5 electronic databases and 4 other databases that would yield grey literature in April 2021 to identify qualitative articles on this topic written in English or French. We assessed the quality of the included studies using recognised tools, and synthesised findings using the approach of thematic analysis. We identified 19 records analysed (e.g. journal articles) from 18 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Our analysis identified three themes: (1) increased sense of wellbeing (with six subthemes), (2) factors that engendered an ongoing desire to connect with others, and (3) perceived drawbacks of social prescribing. These themes illustrate the benefits and difficulties people perceive in social prescribing programmes addressing loneliness and social isolation, with an overall balance of more benefits than drawbacks in social prescribing participation. However, given the unhelpful aspects of social prescribing identified by some participants, greater thought should be given to potential harms. Moreover, further qualitative and quantitative research is needed to better understand mechanisms and effectiveness, and how different components of social prescribing might be best matched to individual participants.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Evaluation; Loneliness; Public health; Qualitative research; Social isolation; Social prescribing; Wellbeing

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 36261835      PMCID: PMC9580419          DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-08656-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res        ISSN: 1472-6963            Impact factor:   2.908


  57 in total

1.  The growing problem of loneliness.

Authors:  John T Cacioppo; Stephanie Cacioppo
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2018-02-03       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 2.  A meta-analysis of interventions to reduce loneliness.

Authors:  Christopher M Masi; Hsi-Yuan Chen; Louise C Hawkley; John T Cacioppo
Journal:  Pers Soc Psychol Rev       Date:  2010-08-17

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

Authors:  Dawn Carnes; Ratna Sohanpal; Caroline Frostick; Sally Hull; Rohini Mathur; Gopalakrishnan Netuveli; Jin Tong; Patrick Hutt; Marcello Bertotti
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-12-19       Impact factor: 2.655

4.  Link Worker social prescribing to improve health and well-being for people with long-term conditions: qualitative study of service user perceptions.

Authors:  Suzanne Moffatt; Mel Steer; Sarah Lawson; Linda Penn; Nicola O'Brien
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-07-16       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Loneliness in the general population: prevalence, determinants and relations to mental health.

Authors:  Manfred E Beutel; Eva M Klein; Elmar Brähler; Iris Reiner; Claus Jünger; Matthias Michal; Jörg Wiltink; Philipp S Wild; Thomas Münzel; Karl J Lackner; Ana N Tibubos
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2017-03-20       Impact factor: 3.630

6.  Prevalence and predictors of general psychiatric disorders and loneliness during COVID-19 in the United Kingdom.

Authors:  Lambert Zixin Li; Senhu Wang
Journal:  Psychiatry Res       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 3.222

7.  Service-users' perspectives of link worker social prescribing: a qualitative follow-up study.

Authors:  Josephine M Wildman; Suzanne Moffatt; Mel Steer; Kirsty Laing; Linda Penn; Nicola O'Brien
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2019-01-22       Impact factor: 3.295

8.  Immediate and Longer-Term Changes in the Mental Health and Well-being of Older Adults in England During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Authors:  Paola Zaninotto; Eleonora Iob; Panayotes Demakakos; Andrew Steptoe
Journal:  JAMA Psychiatry       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 21.596

9.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

10.  Loneliness: A signature mental health concern in the era of COVID-19.

Authors:  William D S Killgore; Sara A Cloonan; Emily C Taylor; Natalie S Dailey
Journal:  Psychiatry Res       Date:  2020-05-23       Impact factor: 3.222

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.