Rempel Emily S, Wilson Emma N, Durrant Hannah, Barnett Julie
Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Institute for Policy Research, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
BMJ Open. 2017 Oct 12;7(10):e017734. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017734.
Our aim is to review, and qualitatively evaluate, the aims and measures of social referral programmes. Our first objective is to identify the aims of social referral initiatives. Our second objective is to identify the measures used to evaluate whether the aims of social referral were met.
Literature review.
Social referral programmes, also called social prescribing and emergency case referral, link primary and secondary healthcare with community services, often under the guise of decreasing health system costs.
Following the PRISMA guidelines, we undertook a literature review to address that aim. We searched in five academic online databases and in one online non-academic search engine, including both academic and grey literature, for articles referring to 'social prescribing' or 'community referral'.
We identified 41 relevant articles and reports. After extracting the aims, measures and type of study, we found that most social referral programmes aimed to address a wide variety of system and individual health problems. This included cost savings, resource reallocation and improved mental, physical and social well-being. Across the 41 studies and reports, there were 154 different kinds of measures or methods of evaluation identified. Of these, the most commonly used individual measure was the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale, used in nine studies and reports.
These inconsistencies in aims and measures used pose serious problems when social prescribing and other referral programmes are often advertised as a solution to health services-budgeting constraints, as well as a range of chronic mental and physical health conditions. We recommend researchers and local community organisers alike to critically evaluate for whom, where and why their social referral programmes 'work'.
我们的目标是回顾并定性评估社会转诊计划的目标和措施。我们的首要目标是确定社会转诊倡议的目标。我们的第二个目标是确定用于评估社会转诊目标是否达成的措施。
文献综述。
社会转诊计划,也称为社会处方和紧急病例转诊,通常以降低卫生系统成本为幌子,将初级和二级医疗保健与社区服务联系起来。
遵循PRISMA指南,我们进行了一项文献综述以实现该目标。我们在五个学术在线数据库和一个在线非学术搜索引擎中进行搜索,包括学术文献和灰色文献,查找提及“社会处方”或“社区转诊”的文章。
我们识别出41篇相关文章和报告。在提取目标、措施和研究类型后,我们发现大多数社会转诊计划旨在解决各种各样的系统和个人健康问题。这包括成本节约、资源重新分配以及改善心理、身体和社会福祉。在这41项研究和报告中,共识别出154种不同的评估措施或方法。其中,最常用的个体测量方法是沃里克 - 爱丁堡心理健康量表,在9项研究和报告中使用。
当社会处方和其他转诊计划经常被宣传为解决卫生服务预算限制以及一系列慢性心理和身体健康问题的解决方案时,目标和所使用措施的这些不一致带来了严重问题。我们建议研究人员和当地社区组织者都要批判性地评估他们的社会转诊计划对谁、在哪里以及为何“有效”。