Implementing social prescribing in a rural Ottawa community: collaboration between a community resource centre and a family health organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe a social prescribing pilot intervention that was delivered in a rural community and its impact on the health, well-being and healthcare utilization of clients. Design/methodology/approach A 10-month social prescribing pilot intervention was implemented in a family health organization which involved embedding a social prescribing link worker from a local community resource centre into the clinic to provide mental health and community resource navigation support to clients. A service evaluation was performed to measure the impact of the programme on client health, well-being and healthcare utilization. Findings There was a 43% improvement in well-being and a 23% improvement in loneliness for the small subset of participants who provided outcome measures at their first and third visits (n = 3). Hospital, emergency department and emergency medical services (paramedic) use decreased over the course of the programme for the 16 participants who completed discharge questions on healthcare utilization, while family doctor visits increased overall. Practical implications These findings support the integration of social prescribing into primary care practice through collaboration between community and healthcare organizations to potentially improve client well-being and healthcare utilization. However, these findings were based on a small number of participants who provided outcome measure data after the initial visit. Originality/value This study presents a unique model for a social prescribing intervention in a rural setting that strengthens collaboration between healthcare and community organizations and is outside of the community health centre model of care.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".