Introduction:There is currently no agreed definition of social prescribing. This is problematic for research, policy, and practice, as the use of common language is the crux of establishing a common understanding. Both conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing are needed to address this gap. Therefore, the aim of the study that is outlined in this protocol is to establish internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing.Methodology: A Delphi study will be conducted to develop internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing with an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts. It is anticipated that this study will involve approximately 40 participants (range = 20-60 participants) and consist of 3-5 rounds. Consensus will be defined a priori as ≥80% agreement.Discussion: Not only will these definitions serve to unite the social prescribing community, but they will also inform research, policy, and practice. By laying the groundwork for the formation of a robust evidence base, this foundational work will support the advancement of social prescribing and help to unlock the full potential of the social prescribing movement. Conclusion:This important work will be foundational and timely, given the rapid spread of the social prescribing movement around the world.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to establish internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing.DesignA three-round Delphi study was conducted.SettingThis study was conducted virtually using an online survey platform.ParticipantsThis study involved an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts. The expert panel (n=48) represented 26 countries across five continents, numerous expert groups and a variety of years of experience with social prescribing, with the average being 5 years (range=1–20 years).ResultsAfter three rounds, internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing were established. The definitions were transformed into the Common Understanding of Social Prescribing (CUSP) conceptual framework.ConclusionThis foundational work offers a common thread—a shared sense of what social prescribing is, which may be woven into social prescribing research, policy and practice to foster common understanding of this concept.

IntroductionWith the social prescribing movement gaining traction globally, there is a need for an agreed definition of social prescribing. There are two types of definitions — conceptual and operational, meaning agreement on both types of definitions is needed.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to establish internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing.DesignA three-round Delphi study was conducted.MethodsConsensus was defineda priorias ≥80% agreement. In Round 1, participants were asked to list key elements that are essential to the conceptual definition of social prescribing and to provide corresponding statements that operationalize each of the key elements. In Round 2, participants were asked to rate their agreement with items from the first round for inclusion in the conceptual and/or operational definitions of social prescribing. Based on the findings from this round, the conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing were developed, including long and short versions of the conceptual definition. In Round 3, participants were asked to rate their agreement with the conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing.ParticipantsThis study involved an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts. The expert panel (n=48) represented 26 different countries across five continents, numerous expert groups, and a variety of years of experience with social prescribing, with the average being 5 years (range = 1-20 years).ResultsAfter three rounds, internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing were established. The definitions were transformed into the Common Understanding of Social Prescribing (CUSP) conceptual framework.ConclusionThis foundational work offers a common thread — a shared sense of what social prescribing is, which may be woven into social prescribing research, policy, and practice to foster common understanding of this concept.

Background Implementation of quality improvement (QI) practices varies considerably among public health units (PHUs) in Ontario. With the emphasis on continuous quality improvement (CQI) in the revised Ontario Public Health Standards (OPHS), there is a need to understand the level of QI maturity in Ontario’s PHUs. The objective of this research was to establish a baseline understanding of QI maturity in Ontario’s PHUs. Methods The QI Maturity Tool - Modified Ontario Version was used to assess the state of QI maturity in 34 PHUs across Ontario. QI maturity was assessed through 23 questions across three dimensions: QI Organizational Culture; QI Capacity and Competency; and QI Perceived Value. QI maturity scores were classified into five stages: Beginning; Emerging; Progressing; Achieving; and Excelling. QI maturity scores were calculated for each of the 34 participating PHUs to determine their stage of QI maturity. Each PHU’s score was then used to determine the provincial average for QI maturity. Participants were also asked to answer three questions related to core CQI organizational structures. Results Across the 34 PHUs, 3503 staff participated in the survey. A review of individual PHU scores indicates that Ontario’s PHUs are at varying stages of QI maturity. The average QI maturity score of 4.94 for the 34 participating PHUs places the provincial average in the “Emerging” stage of QI maturity. By QI dimensions, the participating PHUs scored in the “Emerging” stage for QI Organizational Culture (5.09), the “Beginning” stage for QI Competency and Capacity (4.58), and the “Achieving” stage for QI Perceived Value (6.00). Conclusion There is an urgent need for Ontario’s PHUs to progress to higher stages of QI maturity. Participants place a high value on QI, but collectively are at less “mature” stages of QI in relation to QI organizational culture and the competency and capacity to engage in QI activities. PHUs should leverage the value that staff place on QI to foster the development of a culture of QI and provide staff with relevant knowledge and skills to engage in QI activities.

Background Implementation of quality improvement (QI) practices varies considerably among public health units (PHUs) in Ontario. With the emphasis on continuous quality improvement (CQI) in the revised Ontario Public Health Standards (OPHS), there is a need to understand the level of quality improvement (QI) maturity in Ontario’s PHUs. The objective of this research was to establish a baseline understanding of QI maturity in Ontario’s PHUs. Methods The QI Maturity Tool - Modified Ontario Version was used to assess the state of QI maturity in 34 PHUs across Ontario. QI maturity was assessed through 23 questions across three dimensions: QI Organizational Culture; QI Capacity and Competency; and QI Perceived Value. QI maturity scores were classified into five stages: Beginning; Emerging; Progressing; Achieving; and Excelling. QI maturity scores were calculated for each of the 34 participating PHUs to determine their stage of QI maturity. Each PHU’s score was then used to determine the provincial average for QI maturity. Participants were also asked to answer three questions related to core CQI organizational structures. Results Across the 34 PHUs, 3,503 staff participated in the survey. A review of individual PHU scores indicates that Ontario’s PHUs are at varying stages of QI maturity. The average QI maturity score of 4.94 for the 34 participating PHUs places the provincial average in the “Emerging” stage of QI maturity. By QI dimensions, the participating PHUs scored in the “Emerging” stage for QI Organizational Culture (5.09), the “Beginning” stage for QI Competency and Capacity (4.58), and the “Achieving” stage for QI Perceived Value (6.00). Conclusion There is an urgent need for Ontario’s PHUs to progress to higher stages of QI maturity. Participants place a high value on QI, but collectively are at less “mature” stages of QI in relation to QI organizational culture and the competency and capacity to engage in QI activities. PHUs should leverage the value that staff place on QI to foster the development of a culture of QI and provide staff with relevant knowledge and skills to engage in QI activities.