A Qualitative Study of National Perspectives on Advancing Social Prescribing Using Co‐Design in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Social prescribing offers a formal pathway of connecting patients in the health system with sources of support within the community to help improve their health and well-being. Since its launch in March 2022, the Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing has acted as a collective impact network to identify, connect and build upon established social prescribing initiatives using a co-design methodology. The institute received input from a participant advisory council, co-design partners and several communities of interest groups. This study aimed to describe the perceptions of the Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing's role in advancing social prescribing using a co-design approach and the barriers and facilitators to implementing social prescribing in Canada. METHODS: We used a qualitative descriptive study design, document analysis, participant observation and semi-structured individual interviews (n = 7) with members of the Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing co-design group and the institute's leadership. We also analysed documents, field notes and transcripts using codebook thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four themes were developed representing the facilitators of implementing the Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing to support social prescribing: Creating relational mechanisms (i.e., partnerships and connections), Bringing awareness to social prescribing and contributing to the evidence (i.e., values and beliefs), Addressing systemic conditions (i.e., having a common language for social prescribing and organizing the community health sector) and Enabling funding and policy to drive social prescribing initiatives (i.e., shifting evidence into policy and securing sustainable funding). CONCLUSION: Participants' reflections on the co-design process demonstrated that the Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing development provided networking opportunities and shared resources relevant to social prescribing. Co-design efforts also fostered relational and informational support, which laid the necessary groundwork in Canada to overcome the complex interplay between the macro- and micro-level settings in which social prescribing is practiced. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The interviews and observations involved participants with lived experience of delivering, receiving or advocating for social prescribing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".