Social prescribing for people with mental health needs living in disadvantaged communities: the Life Rooms model

Abstract

Background: People live socially complex lives and have different health care needs influenced by socioeconomic factors such as deprivation, unemployment, and poor housing. Lack of access to community based social care results in people seeking social support from health care services. This study explores the Life Rooms as a social prescribing model addressing the social determinants of mental health by providing support and access to resources in a local community setting. With an aim to identify key elements that contribute toward enhancing the effectiveness of the Life Rooms social prescribing approach. Methods: Data were obtained through six semi-structured focus groups with mental health service users from two locations in the North West of the UK. Postcode data was collected to generate an Index for Multiple Deprivation (IMD) score, to understand their socioeconomic background. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: A total of 18 participants took part in the study. The majority of participants came from disadvantaged backgrounds; 14 participants measuring 3 and below in terms of overall IMD scores and 9 participants belonged to the poorest decile (IMD score = 1). Participants reported on different elements of the Life Rooms which they found as an effective approach to care. Four main themes emerged from the data: 1) social belonging: being able to just 'be' 2) resourceful and accessible; 3) social inclusion and connectedness; and 4) moving forward: self-development and independence. Conclusion: Findings support the need and benefit social prescribing to improve mental health wellbeing and reduce the burden of mental illness.

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

“…All studies [ 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ] included SP intervention that led to an improvement in well-being outcomes within a community setting. The characteristics of the SP interventions, including the how the co-produced or co-designed approach was applied to each intervention are shown in Table 3 .…”

“…Other publications identified in the SR focused on wider community outcomes and/or their perspectives of co-produced co-designed SP interventions within community settings. Five studies were included under this theme which consisted of four case studies [ 32 , 33 , 34 , 37 ] and one mixed method survey [ 36 ]. All five studies were deemed of low quality on account of being observational studies.…”

“…All five studies were deemed of low quality on account of being observational studies. A moderate risk of bias was also assessed due to the risk of confounders [ 36 , 37 ], selection bias [ 33 , 36 , 37 ] and measurement bias [ 32 , 33 , 34 ] As within the previous theme, there is consistency in terms of the valuable outcomes and perspectives reported in each study which increases the credibility of the results.…”

Green Health Partnerships in Scotland; Pathways for Social Prescribing and Physical Activity Referral

“…These tend to be small groups reliant on volunteers. In addition to delivering interventions, volunteers can offer extra support to those least able to access social situations, which is known to increase adherence [ 35 , 40 , 41 ]. Study participants expressed concerns about the changing responsibilities of green health volunteers with the implementation of formalised referral pathways and volunteer numbers required for scaling up delivery.…”

Using self-determination theory to understand the social prescribing process: a qualitative study

“…1 The prescription can take many forms, depending on the community and resources available and patient's needs, but can include a knitting circle, walking group, bereavement support group, or volunteering. Multiple studies indicate that these prescriptions improve social inclusion [2][3][4][5] , mental well-being, 6 physical activity levels, 7 and selfmanagement of health. 8,9 However, beyond identifying the impact of these prescriptions, it is equally important to understand how SP as a process facilitates these outcomes.…”