The World Health Organization states that physical inactivity is one of the leading behavioural risk factors for disability and mortality in Europe. Social prescribing holds promise as a possible solution by connecting patients from general practice to community-based physical activity. Although research within social prescribing exists, the process of connecting general practice patients to community-based physical activity is not well investigated. This scoping review aimed to summarise and synthesise knowledge on social prescribing provided by health professionals in general practice towards community-based physical activity.
Methods:
A systematic search for literature in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, SportsDiscus and other sources was conducted to identify initiatives connecting general practice to community-based physical activity. Semi-structured interviews were then conducted with subject-specific national experts. Finally, preliminary findings from the literature and the interviews were used in a co-creation process with experts to synthesise and finalise the results of a thematic analysis across data sources.
Results:
Based on 19 records, five expert interviews and subsequent co-creation, we identified three themes: (a) barriers and facilitators, (b) organisational perspectives and (c) value-based considerations.
Conclusions:
This review illuminates the complex nature of social prescribing programmes that connect general practice patients to community-based physical activity in Denmark. It also presents practical and fundamental considerations when applying social prescribing across different settings.
OECD/World Health Organization. Step up! Tackling the burden of insufficient physical activity in Europe. Paris: OECD, 2023.
2.
World Health Organization. Integrated brief interventions for noncommunicable disease risk factors in primary care: the manual. BRIEF project. Geneva: World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, 2022.
3.
World Health Organization. Global action plan on physical activity 2018–2030: more active people for a healthier world. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2018.
4.
RyomKSimonsenCBEshøjS, et al. Tackling physical inactivity in Scandinavia: a narrative review of reviews supplemented by expert interviews. Scand J Public Health2023;51:125–36. doi:10.1177/14034948211042956.
5.
AllenderSBrownADBoltonKA, et al. Translating systems thinking into practice for community action on childhood obesity. Obes Rev2019;20:179–84. doi:10.1111/obr.12865.
6.
RyomKSimonsenCBChristiansenSR, et al. Inaktivitet i Danmark – delrapport 2 [Physical inactivity in Denmark – subreport 2]. Aarhus, Denmark: Institut for Folkesundhed, Aarhus University, 2020.
7.
ReisRSSalvoDOgilvieD, et al. Scaling up physical activity interventions worldwide: stepping up to larger and smarter approaches to get people moving. Lancet2016;388:1337–48.
8.
JorgensenTKNordentoftMKroghJ.How do general practitioners in Denmark promote physical activity?Scand J Prim Health Care2012;30:141–6. doi:10.3109/02813432.2012.688710.
9.
BuckleyBJRFinnieSJMurphyRC, et al. ‘You’ve got to pick your battles’: a mixed-methods investigation of physical activity counselling and referral within general practice. Int J Environ Res Public Health2020;17:7428. doi:10.3390/ijerph17207428.
10.
CarstairsSARogowskyRHCunninghamKB, et al. Connecting primary care patients to community-based physical activity: a qualitative study of health professional and patient views. BJGP Open2020;4. doi:10.3399/bjgpopen20X101100.
11.
LeenaarsKEFSmitEWagemakersA, et al. The role of the care sport connector in the Netherlands. Health Promot Int2018;33:422–35. doi:10.1093/heapro/daw097.
12.
BickerdikeLBoothAWilsonPM, et al. Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence. BMJ Open2017;7. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013384.
13.
PeschenyJVPappasYRandhawaG.Facilitators and barriers of implementing and delivering social prescribing services: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res2018;18:86. doi:10.1186/s12913-018-2893-4.
14.
HuskKBlockleyKLovellR, et al. What approaches to social prescribing work, for whom, and in what circumstances? A realist review. Health Soc Care Community2020;28:309–24.
15.
SandhuSLianTDrakeC, et al. Intervention components of link worker social prescribing programmes: a scoping review. Health Soc Care Community2022;30:e3761–74. doi:10.1111/hsc.14056.
16.
KimberleeR.What is social prescribing?Adv Soc Sci Res J2015;2. doi:10.14738/assrj.21.808.
17.
TierneySWongGRobertsN, et al. Supporting social prescribing in primary care by linking people to local assets: a realist review. BMC Med2020;18:49. doi:10.1186/s12916-020-1510-7.
18.
WildmanJMMoffattSPennL, et al. Link workers’ perspectives on factors enabling and preventing client engagement with social prescribing. Health Soc Care Community2019;27:991–8. doi:10.1111/hsc.12716.
19.
Calderón-LarrañagaSMilnerYClinchM, et al. Tensions and opportunities in social prescribing. Developing a framework to facilitate its implementation and evaluation in primary care: a realist review. BJGP Open2021;5. doi:10.3399/bjgpo.2021.0017.
20.
MooreCUnwinPEvansN, et al. Social prescribing: exploring general practitioners’ and healthcare professionals’ perceptions of, and engagement with, the NHS model. Health Soc Care Community2022;30:e5176–85. doi:10.1111/hsc.13935.
21.
ArkseyHO’MalleyL.Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol2005;8:19–32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616.
22.
PollockDAlexanderLMunnZ, et al. Moving from consultation to co-creation with knowledge users in scoping reviews: guidance from the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group. JBI Evid Synth2022;20:969–79. doi:10.11124/JBIES-21-00416.
23.
PetersMDJMarnieCTriccoAC, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement2021;19:3–10. doi:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000277.
24.
PetersMDJGodfreyCMcInerneyP, et al. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evid Synth2022;20:953–68. doi:10.11124/JBIES-21-00242.
25.
TriccoACLillieEZarinW, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med2018;169:467–73. doi:10.7326/M18-0850.
26.
NapieralaHKrügerKKuschickD, et al. Social prescribing: systematic review of the effectiveness of psychosocial community referral interventions in primary care. Int J Integr Care2022;22:11. doi:10.5334/ijic.6472.
27.
SouthJHigginsTJWoodallJ, et al. Can social prescribing provide the missing link?Primary Health Care Res Dev2008;9:310–8. doi:10.1017/S146342360800087X.
28.
CunninghamKBRogowskyRHCarstairsSA, et al. Methods of connecting primary care patients with community-based physical activity opportunities: a realist scoping review. Health Soc Care Community2021;29:1169–99. doi:10.1111/hsc.13186.
29.
EngdalSHansenHFOttesenLS.Mind the gap: building bridges between public sector exercise programmes and civil society sports associations: an integrative review of the literature. Eur J Sport Soc2023;20:279–98. doi:10.1080/16138171.2022.2121320.
30.
PestoffV.Co-production and third sector social services in Europe: some concepts and evidence. Voluntas2012;23:1102–18. doi:10.1007/s11266-012-9308-7.
31.
TortzenAAggerA.Forskningsreview om samskabelse [Research review on co-production]. Odense: UC Lillebaelt, 2015.
32.
AndersenMFRoedKRiisA, et al. Perspectives of professional experts in relation to the development of community-based exercise for young adults with schizophrenia: a qualitative study. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med2023;9:e001658. doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2023-001658.
33.
World Health Organization. Inclusive, sustainable, welcoming national sports federations: health promoting sports federation implementation guidance. Geneva: World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, 2023.
PattonMQ.Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res1999;34:1189–208.
36.
BertottiMFrostickCHuttP, et al. A realist evaluation of social prescribing: an exploration into the context and mechanisms underpinning a pathway linking primary care with the voluntary sector. Prim Health Care Res Dev2018;19:232–45. doi:10.1017/S1463423617000706.
37.
BrinkmannSKvaleS.Conducting an interview. In: InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2012, pp.123–41.
38.
Bradbury-JonesCAveyardHHerberOR, et al. Scoping reviews: the PAGER framework for improving the quality of reporting. Int J Soc Res Methodol2022;25:457–70. doi:10.1080/13645579.2021.1899596.
39.
BraunVClarkeV.Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol2006;3:77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
WormaldHIngleL.GP exercise referral schemes: improving the patient’s experience. Health Educ J2004;63:362–73.
43.
MortonKLBiddleSJHBeauchampMR.Changes in self-determination during an exercise referral scheme. Public Health2008;122:1257–60. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2007.11.006.
44.
MarklandDTobinVJ.Need support and behavioural regulations for exercise among exercise referral scheme clients: the mediating role of psychological need satisfaction. Psychol Sport Exerc2010;11:91–9.
45.
Tava’eNNosaV.The green prescription programme and the experiences of Pacific women in Auckland. J Prim Health Care2012;4:313–9.
46.
LeemrijseCJDe BakkerDHOomsL, et al. Collaboration of general practitioners and exercise providers in promotion of physical activity a written survey among general practitioners. BMC Fam Pract2015;16:96. doi:10.1186/s12875-015-0316-8.
47.
LeenaarsKEFlorissonAMSmitE, et al. The connection between the primary care and the physical activity sector: professionals’ perceptions. BMC Public Health2016;16:1001. doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3665-x.
48.
LeenaarsKEFSmitEWagemakersA, et al. Exploring the impact of the care sport connector in the Netherlands. BMC Public Health2017;17:813. doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4830-6.
49.
AndersenPLendahlsLHolmbergS, et al. Patients’ experiences of physical activity on prescription with access to counsellors in routine care: a qualitative study in Sweden. BMC Public Health2019;19:210. doi:10.1186/s12889-019-6535-5.
50.
FlemingJBryceCParsonsJ, et al. Engagement with and delivery of the ‘Parkrun practice initiative’ in general practice: a mixed methods study. Br J Gen Pract2020;70:e573–80. doi:10.3399/BJGP20X710453.
51.
JoelssonMLundqvistSLarssonMEH. Tailored physical activity on prescription with follow-ups improved motivation and physical activity levels. A qualitative study of a 5-year Swedish primary care intervention. Scand J Prim Health Care2020;38:399–410. doi:10.1080/02813432.2020.1842965.
52.
WadeMBrownNDancyB, et al. Identification of dropout predictors to a community-based physical activity programme that uses motivational interviewing. J Public Health (Oxf)2020;42:3–11. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdy206.
53.
FlemingJWellingtonCParsonsJ, et al. Collaboration between primary care and a voluntary, community sector organisation: practical guidance from the Parkrun practice initiative. Health Soc Care Community2020;30:e514–23. doi:10.1111/hsc.13236.
54.
BalleULassenB.Motion på opfordring Evalueringsrapport af pilotprojektet 2004–2005 [Exercise by invitation evaluation report of the pilot project 2004–2005]. Aarhus: Idrætssamvirket Århus, 2005.
55.
BredahlTG.Ekstern evaluering af Motion på Recept i Frederiksberg Kommune: September 2007 [External evaluation of ‘exercise prescription’ in Frederiksberg municipality: September 2007]. Frederiksberg: Institut for Idræt og Biomakanik, Syddansk Universitet, 2008.
56.
AndreassenP.Evaluering af Region Syddanmarks projekt Motion som Medicin – Organisering og motionsformidling [‘Exercise as medicine’ – organization and exercise facilitation. Odense: Institut for Idræt og Biomekanik Syddansk Universitet, 2007.
57.
BredahlTGårnAKristensenT, et al. Resultatopsamling af motion på recept i Danmark. Report no. 9788771040647. København: Sundhedsstyrelsen, 2010.
58.
BredahlTGGårnAKristensenT, et al. Resultatopsamling af Motion på Recept i Danmark [Summary of results of exercise prescription in Denmark]. Copenhagen: Sundhedsstyrelsen, 2010.
59.
RyanRMDeciEL.Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Classic definitions and new directions. Contemp Educ Psychol2000;25:54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
60.
KolovouVBoltonNCroneD, et al. Systematic review of the barriers and facilitators to cross-sector partnerships in promoting physical activity. Perspect Public Health. Epub ahead of print 18 June 2023. doi:10.1177/17579139231170784.
61.
EganMMcGillEErV, et al. Guidance on systems approaches to local public health evaluation. Part 1: Introducing systems thinking. London: National Institute for Health Research School for Public Health Research, 2019.
