BackgroundSocial Prescribing is a service in primary care that involves the referral of patients with non-clinical needs to local services and activities provided by the third sector (community, voluntary, and social enterprise sector). Social Prescribing aims to promote partnership working between the health and the social sector to address the wider determinants of health. To date, there is a weak evidence base for Social Prescribing services. The objective of the review was to identify factors that facilitate and hinder the implementation and delivery of SP services based in general practice involving a navigator.MethodsWe searched eleven databases, the grey literature, and the reference lists of relevant studies to identify the barriers and facilitators to the implementation and delivery of Social Prescribing services in June and July 2016. Searches were limited to literature written in English. No date restrictions were applied. Findings were synthesised narratively, employing thematic analysis. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool Version 2011 was used to evaluate the methodological quality of included studies.ResultsEight studies were included in the review. The synthesis identified a range of factors that facilitate and hinder the implementation and delivery of SP services. Facilitators and barriers were related to: the implementation approach, legal agreements, leadership, management and organisation, staff turnover, staff engagement, relationships and communication between partners and stakeholders, characteristics of general practices, and the local infrastructure. The quality of most included studies was poor and the review identified a lack of published literature on factors that facilitate and hinder the implementation and delivery of Social Prescribing services.ConclusionThe review identified a range of factors that facilitate and hinder the implementation and delivery of Social Prescribing services. Findings of this review provide an insight for commissioners, managers, and providers to guide the implementation and delivery of future Social Prescribing services. More high quality research and transparent reporting of findings is needed in this field.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2893-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Social prescribing initiatives are widely implemented in the UK National Health Service to integrate health and social care. Social prescribing is a service in primary care that links patients with non-medical needs to sources of support provided by the community and voluntary sector to help improve their health and wellbeing. Such programmes usually include navigators, who work with referred patients and issue onward referrals to sources of non-medical support. This systematic review aimed to assess the evidence of service user outcomes of social prescribing programmes based on primary care and involving navigators. Methods We searched 11 databases, the grey literature, and the reference lists of relevant studies to identify the available evidence on the impact of social prescribing on service users. Searches were limited to literature written in English. No date restrictions were applied, and searches were conducted to June 2018. Findings were synthesized narratively, employing thematic analysis. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool Version 2011 was used to evaluate the methodological quality of included studies. Results Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The evidence base is mixed, some studies found improvements in health and wellbeing, health-related behaviours, self-concepts, feelings, social contacts and day-to-day functioning post-social prescribing, whereas others have not. The review also shows that the evaluation methodologies utilized were variable in quality. Conclusion In order to assess the success of social prescribing services, more high quality and comparable evaluations need to be conducted in the future. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews number: CRD42017079664

BackgroundThere is a political drive in the UK to use assistive technologies such as telehealth and telecare as an innovative and efficient approach to healthcare delivery. However, the success of implementation of such services remains dependent on the ability to engage the wider population to adopt these services. It has been widely acknowledged that low acceptance of technology, forms a key barrier to adoption although findings been mixed. Further, it remains unclear what, if any barriers exist between patients and how these compare to those who have declined or withdrawn from using these technologies. This research aims to address this gap focusing on the UK based Cambridgeshire Community Services Assistive Telehealth and Telecare service, an integrated model of telehealth and telecare.MethodsQualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted between 1st February 2014 and 1st December 2014, to explore the views and experiences of ‘users’ and ‘non-users’ using this service. ‘Users’ were defined as patients who used the service (N = 28) with ‘non-users’ defined as either referred patients who had declined the service before allocation (N = 3) or had withdrawn after using the ATT service (N = 9). Data were analysed using the Framework Method.ResultsThis study revealed that there are a range of barriers and facilitators that impact on the decision to adopt and continue to engage with this type of service. Having a positive attitude and a perceived need that could be met by the ATT equipment were influential factors in the decision to adopt and engage in using the service. Engagement of the service centred on ‘usability’, ‘usefulness of equipment’, and ‘threat to identity and independence’.ConclusionsThe paper described the influential role of referrers in decision-making and the need to engage with such agencies on a strategic level. The findings also revealed that reassurance from the onset was paramount to continued engagement, particularly in older patients who appeared to have more negative feelings towards technology. In addition, there is a clear need for continued product development and innovation to not only increase usability and functionality of equipment but also to motivate other sections of the population who could benefit from such services. Uncovering these factors has important policy implications in how services can improve access and patient support through the application of assistive technology which could in turn reduce unnecessary cost and burden on overstretched health services.

Currently the demand for transplant organs far outstrips the supply in the UK. This problem is even more severe for the Asian population, who have been shown to be disproportionately over-represented on transplant waiting lists in some regions of the UK. Several commentators have suggested that religious and cultural traditions may be the major determinant preventing Asians from donating organs. An exploratory qualitative study was undertaken with the aim of examining the influence of religious beliefs, amongst other things, on the extent and direction of public attitudes towards organ donation in a cross-section of the Asian population in Luton. This study indicates that, in the population studied, culture and religion play a much less prohibitive part in determining the level of organ donation than previously suggested. However, there is a desire to be aware of the religious stances so that people can make a more informed decision. The emphasis should clearly been a reconsideration of the presently inadequate approaches to organ procurement and on devising and supplementing these with more appropriate ones. An example of the failure to inform effectively the relevant populations about important developments is that only two of the 32 Muslims in the survey had heard of the 'fatwa' by the Muslim Legislative Council permitting organ donation.

This article investigates the challenges faced by those trying to develop 'culturally competent' palliative care for South Asian cancer patients in Luton, UK. It discusses the findings of a phenomenological study of service providers' attitudes to and experiences of caring for South Asian patients. Ten semi-structured in-depth interviews were carried out with a range of staff who work in home and community-based palliative care settings, including nurses, community liaison personnel and representatives of non-statutory organisations. The authors begin by considering how these service providers construct ideas of cultural difference and how these relate to philosophies of palliative care. They then examine attempts to deal with cultural diversity in everyday practice, focusing in particular on the social context of care in the home. The paper considers the ways in which staff attempt to incorporate the cultural needs of patients, family, kin and community. Rather than criticising current working practices, the authors highlight the complexity of delivering culturally competent services from the perspective of those working directly with patients. In doing so, they contribute to ongoing debates about the development of anti-discriminatory practice in health and social care.

Background: Social prescription is an initiative that aims to link patients in primary care with sources of support within the community and voluntary sector to improve their health, wellbeing, and care experience. Such programmes usually include navigators, who work with referred patients and issue onward referrals to sources of non-medical support. Most research on social prescribing (SP) has focused on outcome evaluations, resulting in a knowledge gap of factors affecting uptake and adherence. Understanding such factors enables the refinement of programmes, which has the potential to enhance uptake and adherence, reduce health inequalities, and optimise investment.

Families play a crucial role in determining the mental health of the autistic individual(s) they are caring for. However, the stigma associated with autism can impair caregiver health. To investigate this, empirical evidence pertaining to stigma’s impact on informal caregivers’ mental health was systematically reviewed. All twelve included studies (n = 1442 informal caregivers) consistently reported the impact of autism related stigma upon caregiver mental health to be significant, meaningful and complex. A new theoretical framework describing the relationship between stigma and caregiver mental health is constructed. Moderating variables include those both changeable through intervention (e.g. hopelessness, self-esteem, self-compassion) and not changeable (gender, culture, financial burden and time since diagnosis). Implications and recommendations for professionals, interventions and future research are proposed.

The influence of temporality on donation-decision making is worthy of consideration in the planning of future education, policy, practice, and research for improved rates of family consent to donation.