Social Prescribing as ‘Social Cure’: A longitudinal study of the health benefits of social connectedness within a Social Prescribing pathway

Abstract

We examined whether the Social Cure (SC) perspective explains the efficacy of a Social Prescribing (SP) pathway which addresses healthcare needs through enhancing social connections. Data were collected at pathway entry from patients with long-term health conditions, or who felt isolated/lonely/anxious ( N = 630), then again 4 months later ( N = 178), and 6-9 months later ( N = 63). Being on the pathway was associated with increased group memberships between T0 and T1. The relationship between increased group memberships and quality-of-life was serially mediated by belonging, support and loneliness. This study is the first to show SP enhances health/well-being via SC mechanisms.

Can Social Prescribing Foster Individual and Community Well-Being? A Systematic Review of the Evidence

“…The social prescribing projects studied include a total of 41,641 participants (aged 18 or older). Thirty-six studies employ a pre/post design [ 26 , 27 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 44 , 55 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 ], 8 report case studies with evidence taken at one point in time [ 26 , 42 , 70 , 74 , 78 , 83 , 85 , 86 ], 16 studies conduct surveys [ 27 , 37 , 55 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 68 ,…”

“…Fourteen of the fifty-one studies assess loneliness as an outcome of interest [ 26 , 27 , 37 , 58 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 85 , 87 , 89 , 92 ]. Of these, seven use a version of the UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA) scale to measure loneliness [ 26 , 27 , 37 , 79 , 80 , 85 , 89 ], one uses the Delphi method to conduct thematic analysis [ 87 ], and one uses the Hawthorne Friendship Scale [ 76 ]. Four either do not report how they assess loneliness or do not report how their assessments were designed or chosen [ 58 , 74 , 75 , 92 ].…”

“…Forty-two of the studies are concerned with well-being. While 14 studies rely on either the long [ 26 , 38 , 42 , 59 , 63 , 66 , 67 , 70 , 71 , 73 , 77 , 81 ] or short [ 80 , 83 ] version of the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS), others employ measures such as the UK Office for National Statistics 4-question (ONS4) measure [ 68 , 76 ]; the University College London (UCL) Museum well-being measure [ 82 , 85 ]; interview and survey questions designed for the purposes of a particular programme [ 64 , 65 , 69 , 75 , 78 ]; the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) and the World Health Organisation Quality of Life score (QoL) [ 37 ]; self-determination theory [ 44 ]; psychological measures of depression and anxiety [ 60 ]; the Medical outcome profile (MYMOP) [ 61 ]; the Investigating Choice Experiments for the Preferences of Older People Capability Measure for Adults (ICECAP-A) capability-based measure [ 57 ]; or tests for components of well-being, such as self-confidence, strength, resilience, joy, and vitality [ 27 , 28 , 33 , 37 , 72 ]. Nine studies do not provide details of how well-being is assessed [ 36 , 47 , 53 , 57 , 62 , 68 , 70 , 82 , 87 ].…”

“…Measures of connectedness range from counting an individual’s group activity attendance and perceived group support [ 23 ] to assessing an individual’s sense of acceptance [ 24 ], belonging, or identity [ 25 ], and to consideration of connectedness in terms of its relation to loneliness and social isolation [ 26 ]. In addition to these conceptual challenges, we also lack a theoretical explanation as to precisely why and how social connectedness enhances health [ 27 ].…”

A social cure in the community: A mixed‐method exploration of the role of social identity in the experiences and well‐being of community volunteers

“…As a result, strategies such as "social prescribing", which use community-based social interventions to address the social determinants of ill-health, are multiplying across the globe (Alderwick, Gottlieb, Fichtenberg, & Adler, 2018;Brandling & House, 2009;Kimberlee, 2015;Thomson, Camic, & Chatterjee, 2015). Almost without exception, these interventions are atheoretical, lacking explanations for why increasing social connectedness influences well-being (Halder et al, 2018;Kellezi, et al, 2019;Stevenson et al, 2019;Wakefield et al, 2020).…”