Defining Social Prescribing: Fostering Common Understanding of a Vital Tool in the Integrated Care Toolbox
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
According to the World Health Organization, social prescribing is a holistic approach to health and wellbeing that promotes integrated care. There is growing interest in social prescribing around the world, with over 20 countries involved in the social prescribing movement. However, an agreed definition of social prescribing has yet to emerge. This is problematic for social prescribing research, policy, and practice. Since there are two types of definitions – conceptual and operational, agreement on both types of definitions is needed. The aim of this study was to establish internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing. This study was conducted for the social prescribing community to support the advancement of the social prescribing movement. The research team – one doctoral student and four committee members, collectively designed, implemented, and monitored this research. This study involved an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts. The expert panel (n=48) represented 26 different countries across five continents and numerous expert groups, including service providers, service users, researchers, students, and representatives of the Global Social Prescribing Alliance, the Social Prescribing Network, the Social Prescribing Youth Network, the National Academy for Social Prescribing, and the Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing. A three-round Delphi study was conducted. Consensus was defined a priori as ≥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. Consensus was reached on the definitions in this round, which signified the successful development of internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing. The definitions were transformed into the Common Understanding of Social Prescribing (CUSP) conceptual framework. For the first time in the history of the social prescribing movement, we now have internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing. Additionally, the conceptual definitions are distinct from pre-existing definitions, and to our knowledge, the operational definition is the first in the world. Together, the CUSP conceptual framework and the definitions offer a common thread – a shared sense of what social prescribing is. Social prescribing researchers, policymakers, and practitioners are encouraged to use the outputs of this work in social prescribing research, policy, and practice to foster common understanding of this concept.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,200 | 0,129 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,015 | 0,081 |
| Communication savante | 0,026 | 0,048 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,063 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,010 | 0,025 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».