This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Background People living with Long Term Neurological Conditions (LTNCs) value peer support and social activities. Psychological support and wellbeing enables them to manage their condition. Social prescribing is a formal process of referring patients to a link worker to co-design a plan to improve their health and wellbeing. Intervention involves supporting participation in activities based within the individual’s local community. This study aimed to explore the barriers and enablers to accessing social prescribing for people living with LTNCs (plwLTNCs). Methods A total of four focus groups were carried out with 17 participants, including different neurological conditions such as multiple sclerosis, Fragile X Syndrome, epilepsy, and traumatic brain injury. Two participants were family carers and supported people living with epilepsy and motor neurone disease. Findings were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Five themes were identified: (1) Lack of knowledge; (2) Service provision difficulties; (3) Benefits of social prescribing activities; (4) Physical barriers and (5) Psychological barriers. There was a lack of knowledge about social prescribing and what it actually was. Participants anticipated service provision difficulties relating to funding, link workers need for knowledge of LTNC’s and for activities to be varied and individualised. The potential benefits of social prescribing activities were recognised across the groups especially its potential to tackle loneliness and to offer plwLTNC’s purpose. Participants highlighted a number of physical barriers such as transport and accessibility; and psychological barriers such as anxiety and stigma. Conclusion Social prescribing aims to address the health inequalities of those living with long-term conditions, however currently it is likely to exclude plwLTNCs. Recommendations for practice and future research are made.

Objective Little to no research has evaluated staff training and its effects on the well-being of people with MND. The aim of this study was to assess how educating multi-disciplinary staff about psychosocial well-being in MND can change approaches to working with people with MND. Methods Multi-disciplinary staff attended a half-day workshop to receive training on psychosocial well-being in people with MND and to discuss QoL issues using the World Café approach. Prior to the workshop and 2 weeks post-workshop, staff completed a questionnaire on their knowledge of this topic. A selection of staff completed a follow-up interview 2 months later to assess changes in their practice. Results 19 staff, including dieticians and occupational therapists, attended the workshop and completed the pre-workshop questionnaire. Ten filled in the post-workshop questionnaire and were interviewed. Clinicians identified six strategies/barriers of improving communication amongst MND staff, suggesting the need for better collaborative working, raising awareness of psychological and emotional issues in MND and barriers to service access due to health inequalities, amongst others. Conclusions This workshop raised staff awareness on communicating QoL in MND. Future work needs to look into implementing this training in clinical practice and evaluate their impact on QoL in MND.

Background People living with Long Term Neurological Conditions (LTNCs) value peer support and social activities. Psychological support and wellbeing enables them to manage their condition. Social prescribing is a formal process of referring patients to a link worker to co-design a plan to improve their health and wellbeing. Intervention involves supporting participation in activities based within the individual’s local community. This study aimed to explore the barriers and enablers to accessing social prescribing for people living with LTNCs (plwLTNCs). Methods A total of four focus groups were carried out with 17 participants, including different neurological conditions such as multiple sclerosis, Fragile X Syndrome, epilepsy, and traumatic brain injury. Two participants were family carers and supported people living with epilepsy and motor neurone disease. Findings were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Five themes were identified: (1) Lack of knowledge; (2) Service provision difficulties; (3) Benefits of social prescribing activities; (4) Physical barriers and (5) Psychological barriers. There was a lack of knowledge about social prescribing and what it actually was. Participants anticipated service provision difficulties relating to funding, link workers need for knowledge of LTNC’s and for activities to be varied and individualised. The potential benefits of social prescribing activities were recognised across the groups especially its potential to tackle loneliness and to offer plwLTNC’s purpose. Participants highlighted a number of physical barriers such as transport and accessibility; and psychological barriers such as anxiety and stigma. Conclusion Social prescribing aims to address the health inequalities of those living with long-term conditions, however currently it is likely to exclude plwLTNCs. Recommendations for future research are made.