Logo image
Australian link worker social prescribing programs: An integrative review
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Australian link worker social prescribing programs: An integrative review

JR Baker, Michelle Bissett, Rosanne Freak-Poli, Genevieve Dingle, Yvonne Zurynski, Thomas Astell-Burt, Eric Brymer, Tina Prassos, Tamsin Thomas, Cassandra Tognarini, …
PloS one, Vol.19(11), 0309783
11/11/2024
PMID: 39527513
pdf
Australian link worker social prescribing programs721.34 kBDownloadView
Published (Version of record) Open Access CC BY V4.0
url
Australian link worker social prescribing programsView
Published (Version of record) Open CC BY V4.0

Related links

Metrics

9 File views/ downloads
114 Record Views

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#3 Good Health and Well-Being

Source: InCites

Abstract

social prescribing Measurement Public health Preventative health care Health services and systems Mental health services

Link worker social prescribing programs are gaining recognition in Australia for addressing health and social needs outside routine medical care. The evaluation of these programs is essential for informing future social prescribing programs, research and evolving policy. How-ever, diverse outcome evalua-tion measures present challenges for benchmarking across link worker social prescribing programs. An integrative review was conducted to identify and describe outcome domains and measures, and the methodological approaches and evaluation designs of link worker social prescribing programs in Australia. Comprehensive searches of the literature on link worker social prescribing programs in Australia were conducted across 14 electronic databases. In order to reduce the risk of bias, study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by multiple authors, and included studies under-went quality and risk of bias assessment using the standardised Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Six studies met the inclusion criteria. Outcome domains were categorised into ‘person-level’, ‘system-level’ and ‘program implementation’ domains. Despite the variation in partici- pant groups, the ‘person-level’ domains of global well-being and social well-being were con- sistently evaluated. While measurement tools varied significantly, the WHO Quality of Life Brief Assessment and short-form UCLA Loneliness Scale were most commonly applied. At the system level, health service utilisation was primarily evaluated. This integrative review reports on the current state of evidence in Australia, with the potential to track changes and trends over time. Developing a core outcome set, incorporating stakeholder and consumer contributions for benchmarking aligned with the healthcare landscape is recommended. The findings may guide the refining of social prescribing initiatives and future research, ensuring methodological robustness and alignment with individual and community needs.

Details

Logo image