Social prescribing (SP) seeks to enhance the role of the voluntary and community sector in addressing patients' complex needs in primary care. Using discourse analysis, this review investigates how SP is framed in the scientific literature and explores its consequences for service delivery. Theory driven searches identified 89 academic articles and grey literature that included both qualitative and quantitative evidence. Across the literature three main discourses were identified. The first one emphasised increasing social inequalities behind escalating health problems and presented SP as a response to the social determinants of health. The second one problematised people's increasing use of health services and depicted SP as a means of enhancing self‐care. The third one stressed the dearth of human and relational dimensions in general practice and claimed that SP could restore personalised care. Discourses circulated unevenly in the scientific literature, conditioned by a wider political rationality which emphasised individual responsibility and framed SP as ‘solution’ to complex and contentious problems. Critically, this contributed to an oversimplification of the realities of the problems being addressed and the delivery of SP. We propose an alternative ‘care‐based’ framing of SP which prioritises (and evaluates) holistic, sustained and accessible practices within strengthened primary care systems.

BackgroundSocial prescribing (SP) involves linking patients in primary care with services provided by the voluntary and community sector. Despite growing interest within NHS primary care, it remains unclear how and under what circumstances SP might contribute to good practice.AimTo define ‘good’ practice in SP by identifying context-specific enablers and tensions. To contribute to the development of an evidence-based framework for theorizing and evaluating SP within primary care.Design and settingRealist review of secondary data from primary care-based SP schemes.MethodWe searched for qualitative and quantitative evidence from academic articles and grey literature following the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses-Evolving Standards (RAMESES). We characterised common SP practices in three settings (general practice, link workers and community sector) using archetypes which ranged from best to worst practice.ResultsA total of 140 studies were included for analysis. We characterised common SP practices in three settings (general practice, link workers and community sector) using archetypes which ranged from best to worst practice. We identified resources influencing the type and potential impact of SP practices and outlined four dimensions in which opportunities for good practice arise: 1) individual characteristics (stakeholder’s buy-in, vocation, knowledge); 2) interpersonal relations (trustful, bidirectional, informed, supportive, transparent and convenient interactions within and across sectors); 3) organisational contingencies (the availability of a predisposed practice culture, leadership, training opportunities, supervision, information governance, resource adequacy and continuity and accessibility of care within organisations); and 4) policy structures (bottom-up and coherent policymaking, stable funding and suitable monitoring strategies). Findings where synthesised in a multi-level, dynamic and usable SP Framework.ConclusionOur realist review and resulting framework revealed that SP is not inherently advantageous. Specific individual, interpersonal, organisational and policy resources are needed to ensure SP best practice in primary care.

PurposeThis paper aims to compare the clinical effectiveness of oral anti-osteoporosis drugs based on the observed risk of fracture while on treatment in primary care actual practice.Materials and methodsWe investigated two primary care records databases covering UK National Health Service (Clinical Practice Research Datalink, CPRD) and Catalan healthcare (Information System for Research in Primary Care, SIDIAP) patients during 1995–2014 and 2006–2014, respectivey. Treatment-naive incident users of anti-osteoporosis drugs were included and followed until treatment cessation, switching, death, transfer out, or study completion. We considered hip fracture while on treatment as main outcome and major osteoporotic fractures (hip, clinical spine, wrist, and proximal humerus) as secondary outcome. Users of alendronate (reference group) were compared to those of (1) OBP, (2) strontium ranelate (SR), and (3) selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), after matching on baseline characteristics using propensity scores. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data on confounders and competing risk modelling for the calculation of relative risk according to therapy. Country-specific data were analyzed separately and meta-analyzed.ResultsA total of 163,950 UK and 145,236 Catalan patients were identified. Hip (sub-hazard ratio [SHR] [95% CI] 1.04 [0.77–1.40]) and major osteoporotic (SHR [95% CI] 1 [0.78–1.27]) fracture risks were similar among OBP compared to alendronate users. Both hip (SHR [95% CI] 1.26 [1.14–1.39]) and major osteoporotic (SHR [95% CI] 1.06 [1.02–1.12]) fracture risk were higher in SR compared to alendronate users. SERM users had a reduced hip (SHR [95% CI] 0.75 [0.60–0.94]) and major osteoporotic (SHR [95% CI] 0.77 [0.72–0.83]) fracture risk compared to alendronate users.ConclusionWe found a 26% excess hip fracture risk among SR compared to matched alendronate users, in line with placebo-controlled RCT findings. Conversely, in a lower risk population, SERM users had a 25% reduced hip fracture risk compared to alendronate users. Head-to-head RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.

IntroductionSocial prescribing is an innovation being widely adopted within the UK National Health Service policy as a way of improving the management of people with long-term conditions, such as type 2 diabetes (T2D). It generally involves linking patients in primary care with non-medical community-based interventions. Despite widespread national support, evidence for the effectiveness of social prescribing is both insufficient and contested. In this study, we will investigate whether social prescribing can contribute to T2D prevention and, if so, when, how and in what circumstances it might best be introduced.Methods and analysisWe will draw on realist evaluation to investigate the complex interpersonal, organisational, social and policy contexts in which social prescribing relevant to T2D prevention is implemented. We will set up a stakeholder group to advise us throughout the study, which will be conducted over three interconnected stages. In stage 1, we will undertake a realist review to synthesise the current evidence base for social prescribing. In stage 2, we will investigate how social prescribing relevant to people at high risk of T2D ‘works’ in a multiethnic, socioeconomically diverse community and any interactions with existing T2D prevention services using qualitative, quantitative and realist methods. In stage 3 and building on previous stages, we will synthesise a ‘transferable framework’ that will guide implementation and evaluation of social prescribing relevant to T2D prevention at scale.Ethics and disseminationNational Health Service ethics approval has been granted (reference 20/LO/0713). This project will potentially inform the adaptation of social prescribing services to better meet the needs of people at high risk of T2D in socioeconomically deprived areas. Findings may also be transferable to other long-term conditions. Dissemination will be undertaken as a continuous process, supported by the stakeholder group. Tailored outputs will target the following audiences: (1) service providers and commissioners; (2) people at high risk of T2D and community stakeholders; and (3) policy and strategic decision makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020196259.