Mapping Variation in Delivery Models and Data Recording of Primary Care Social Prescribing Link Worker (SPLW) Schemes Across Five Regions in England and Scotland
Social prescribing link workers (SPLWs) connect people to community resources for better health and well‐being. Over the past decade, SPLW schemes have expanded rapidly in NHS primary care in England and Scotland. However, how these schemes have been implemented and assessed in different parts of England and Scotland is not well understood. A mapping exercise of SPLW schemes in three English and two Scottish regions was undertaken to identify services and describe their key features, as well as any variations in delivery, what data are recorded, and how outcomes are measured. Consultations were held with SPLW stakeholders ( n = 98) supplemented with online analysis. Using the TIDieR framework, a taxonomy of SPLW services was created. Across the five regions, four different SPLW employment models were identified, varying by employer and SPLW management approaches. Some regions used up to three models, others only one. Local variations in delivering SPLW schemes included different referral routes, age ranges, priority groups, types of SPLW schemes available, and number of sessions offered. A variety of methods were used to assess service user outcomes, including validated well‐being tools, bespoke well‐being tools, bespoke service user surveys, and qualitative case studies. Variation existed in data recording systems used and, in the frequency, and consistency in using assessment tools and recording service user outcomes. Variation in SPLW delivery models indicates regional and localized interpretations of SPLW schemes. Variations in recording and measuring service user outcomes and in well‐being tools used present challenges for effective evaluation/s of each model and primary care SPLW schemes overall. Enhancing local and national data systems, along with supporting strategies and frameworks for evaluations, would boost SPLW infrastructure and support future policy developments.
Authors
- Morgan Beeson (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6322-7347)
- Heather Brant (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9608-7451)
- Catherine Perry (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8496-6923)
- Manal Etemadi (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8523-1876)
- Paul Wilson (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2657-5780)
- Eddie Donaghy
- Stewart W Mercer (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1703-3664)
- Hilllary Collins (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9809-4628)
- Catherine O’Donnell (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5368-3779)
- Hugh McLeod (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2266-7303)
- Caroline Sanders (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0539-928X)
Institutions
- University of the West of England (GB)
- Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB)
- Newcastle College (GB)
- NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (GB)
- University of Glasgow (GB)
- Newcastle University (GB)
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Health & Social Care in the Community
- Published
- 2025-01-01
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1155/hsc/9243925
- Citations
- 3
- Primary Topic
- Art Therapy and Mental Health
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 18.44
Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research