A Systematic Review to Examine the Evidence in Developing Social Prescribing Interventions That Apply a Co-Productive, Co-Designed Approach to Improve Well-Being Outcomes in a Community Setting

Abstract

This systematic review aims to investigate the evidence in applying a co-design, co-productive approach to develop social prescribing interventions. A growing body of evidence suggests that co-production and co-design are methods that can be applied to engage service users as knowledgeable assets who can contribute to developing sustainable health services. Applying the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic literature search was conducted. Peer-reviewed articles were sought using electronic databases, experts and grey literature. The review search concluded with eight observational studies. Quality appraisal methods were influenced by the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Framework approach. A narrative thematic synthesis of the results was conducted. The evidence suggests that a co-design and co-productive social prescribing can lead to positive well-being outcomes among communities. Barriers and facilitators of co-production and co-design approach were also highlighted within the evidence. The evidence within this review confirms that a co-production and co-design would be an effective approach to engage stakeholders in the development and implementation of a SP intervention within a community setting. The evidence also implies that SP initiatives can be enhanced from the outset, by drawing on stakeholder knowledge to design a service that improves health and well-being outcomes for community members.

Linking Leeds: A Social Prescribing Service for Children and Young People

“…The majority of young people's loneliness scores decreased after engaging with the Linking Leeds service; 50% felt their social networks and relationships had improved and 71% reported a reduction in loneliness. This supports the research conducted by Thomas et al who found the main benefit of social prescribing was the reduction of social isolation, as the young people were able to build a supportive social network [17]. Young people with poor mental health often become isolated, which can have a further negative impact on wellbeing [41].…”

“…The evidence base for social prescribing is growing; however, most studies to date have focused on adults. A recent systematic review found that adults engaging in social prescribing interventions reported an increase in confidence [17]. The authors report this was mainly a result of a reduction in social isolation, as the intervention motivated participants to join social groups and build a social network of support.…”

“…Multiple systematic reviews [17][18][19]23] on social prescribing interventions in adults have found a positive impact on depression and anxiety symptoms. Affective disorders make up a significant proportion of all referrals to CAMHS; however, there is often a wait for appropriate therapeutic treatment.…”

Benefits of Structured Engagement with Target Audiences of a Health Website: Study Design for a Multi-Case Study

“…There is a lot of emphasis on stakeholder engagement in policy and practice, but little evidence to demonstrate that a systematic approach to understanding context based on literature review, mapping and stakeholder workshops can lead to novel actions [ 37 , 38 ]. Despite the enthusiastic adoption of concepts such as stakeholder engagement and “co-design”, there is very little evidence to support particular actions that will lead to impacts that could not have otherwise been achieved [ 39 ].…”

Benefits of Structured Engagement with Target Audiences of a Health Website: Study Design for a Multi-Case Study (Preprint)

“…There is a lot of emphasis on stakeholder engagement in policy and practice, but little evidence to demonstrate that a systematic approach to understanding context based on literature review, mapping and stakeholder workshops can lead to novel actions [37,38]. Despite the enthusiastic adoption of concepts such as stakeholder engagement and "codesign", there is very little evidence to support particular actions that will lead to impacts that could not have otherwise been achieved [39].…”