ABSTRACT
Introduction With the social prescribing movement gaining traction globally, there is a need for an agreed definition of social prescribing. There are two types of definitions – conceptual and operational, meaning agreement on both types of definitions is needed.
Objective The aim of this study was to establish internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing.
Design A three-round Delphi study was conducted.
Methods 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.
Participants This study involved an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts. The expert panel (n=48) represented 26 different countries across five continents, numerous expert groups, and a variety of years of experience with social prescribing, with the average being 5 years (range = 1-20 years).
Results After three rounds, internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing were established. The definitions were transformed into the Common Understanding of Social Prescribing (CUSP) conceptual framework.
Conclusion This foundational work offers a common thread – a shared sense of what social prescribing is, which may be woven into social prescribing research, policy, and practice to foster common understanding of this concept.
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
Strengths of this study include the consensus method that was chosen, the diversity and size of the expert panel, and the fact that consensus was defined a priori as ≥80% agreement
Limitations of this study include the fact that only those who could speak, read, and write English were eligible to participate in this study, the attrition of the expert panel, and the fact that the expert panel did not reach 100% agreement on the definitions
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The authors received no financial support for this study. The authors received financial support from the Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing for open access publishing of this article. The Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing had no involvement in the study design, data collection, data analysis, manuscript development, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Health Sciences and Affiliated Teaching Hospitals Research Ethics Board at Queen's University gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data supporting the findings of this study are available within the manuscript and online supplemental material. Participants of this study did not agree for their individual responses to be shared publicly, so this information is not available.
