Background: This review focused on evaluation of United Kingdom social prescribing schemes published in peer-reviewed journals and reports. Schemes, including arts, books, education and exercise "on prescription" refer patients to community sources of non-clinical intervention. Method: A systematised review protocol appraised primary research material evaluating social prescribing schemes published 2000-2015. Searches were performed in electronic databases using keywords, and articles were screened for evaluation of patient data, referral process, assessment method and outcomes; non-evaluated articles were excluded. Results: Of 86 schemes located including pilots, 40 evaluated primary research materials: 17 used quantitative methods including 6 randomised controlled trials; 16 qualitative methods, and 7 mixed methods; 9 exclusively involved arts on prescription. Conclusions: Outcomes included increase in self-esteem and confidence; improvement in mental well-being and positive mood; and reduction in anxiety, depression and negative mood. Despite positive findings, the review identifies a number of gaps in the evidence base and makes recommendations for future evaluation and implementation of referral pathways.

Background COVID‐19 vaccines can offer a route out of the pandemic, yet initial research suggests that many are unwilling to be vaccinated. A rise in the spread of misinformation is thought to have played a significant role in vaccine hesitancy. To maximize uptake, it is important to understand why misinformation has been able to take hold at this time and why it may pose a more significant problem within certain contexts. Objective To understand people's COVID‐19 beliefs, their interactions with (mis)information during COVID‐19 and attitudes towards a COVID‐19 vaccine. Design and Participants Bradford, UK, was chosen as the study site to provide evidence to local decision makers. In‐depth phone interviews were carried out with 20 people from different ethnic groups and areas of Bradford during Autumn 2020. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted. Results Participants discussed a wide range of COVID‐19 misinformation they had encountered, resulting in confusion, distress and mistrust. Vaccine hesitancy could be attributed to three prominent factors: safety concerns, negative stories and personal knowledge. The more confused, distressed and mistrusting participants felt about their social worlds during the pandemic, the less positive they were about a vaccine. Conclusions COVID‐19 vaccine hesitancy needs to be understood in the context of the relationship between the spread of misinformation and associated emotional reactions. Vaccine programmes should provide a focused, localized and empathetic response to counter misinformation. Patient or Public Contribution A rapid community and stakeholder engagement process was undertaken to identify COVID‐19 priority topics important to Bradford citizens and decision makers.

Social prescribing interventions have ranged from physical exercise (e.g. exercise referral, green gyms) to personal study (e.g. books on prescription, education on prescription) and creative activities (e.g. arts on prescription including dance, film, music and painting). Schemes that have sought to address the social determinants of health include information prescriptions (e.g. debt advice, housing, welfare); healthy living initiatives (e.g. smoking cessation, healthy eating, health checks); social enterprise

This paper presents research findings that help to understand how museum programs created opportunities to enhance wellbeing and health, and changed experiences of social isolation in older adults. The research conceptualized how program elements enabled both individual experiences and relational processes to occur. These components operated within a context that was enriched by the museum as a place to support wellbeing and enhance social interaction. To meaningfully support socially isolated older people as part of local public health strategies, museums need to be accessible and engaging places that purposively support social interaction by involving people and objects, participating in multiple sessions over time, that are facilitated by skilled and knowledgeable staff.

BackgroundCovid-19 vaccines can offer a route out of the pandemic, yet initial research suggests that many are unwilling to be vaccinated. A rise in the spread of misinformation is thought to have played a significant role in this vaccine hesitancy. In order to maximise vaccine uptake it is important to understand why misinformation has been able to take hold at this time and why it may pose a more significant problem within certain populations and places.ObjectiveTo understand people’s Covid-19 beliefs, their interactions with health (mis)information during Covid-19 and attitudes towards a Covid-19 vaccine.Design and participantsIn-depth phone interviews were carried out with 20 people from different ethnic groups and areas of Bradford during Autumn 2020. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted.ResultsParticipants spoke about a wide range of emotive misinformation they had encountered regarding Covid-19, resulting in confusion, distress and mistrust. Vaccine hesitancy could be attributed to three prominent factors: safety concerns, negative stories and personal knowledge. The more confused, distressed and mistrusting participants felt about their social worlds during the pandemic, the less positive they were about a vaccine.ConclusionsCovid-19 vaccine hesitancy needs to be understood in the context of the relationship between the spread of misinformation and associated emotional reactions. Vaccine programmes should provide a focused, localised and empathetic response to counter misinformation.Patient or public contributionA rapid community and stakeholder engagement process was undertaken to identify Covid-19 related priority topics important to both Bradford citizens and local decision makers.