Health promotion referrals in an urban clinic: removing financial barriers influences physician but not patient behavior

Models of social prescribing to address non-medical needs in adults: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

The health and wellbeing consequences of social determinants of health and health behaviours are well established. This has led to a growing interest in social prescribing, which involves linking people to services and supports in the community and voluntary sectors to address non-medical needs. However, there is considerable variability in approaches to social prescribing with little guidance on how social prescribing could be developed to reflect local health systems and needs. The purpose of this scoping review was to describe the types of social prescribing models used to address non-medical needs to inform co-design and decision-making for social prescribing program developers.

METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE(R), CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform, and ProQuest - Dissertations and Theses for articles and grey literature describing social prescribing programs. Reference lists of literature reviews were also searched. The searches were conducted on 2 August 2021 and yielded 5383 results following removal of duplicates.

RESULTS

148 documents describing 159 social prescribing programs were included in the review. We describe the contexts in which the programs were delivered, the program target groups and services/supports to which participants were referred, the staff involved in the programs, program funding, and the use of digital systems.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variability in social prescribing approaches internationally. Social prescribing programs can be summarised as including six planning stages and six program processes. We provide guidance for decision-makers regarding what to consider when designing social prescribing programs.

Racial minorities are more likely than whites to report lack of provider recommendation for colon cancer screening

OBJECTIVES

Although screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is recommended for all adults aged 50 to 75 years in the United States, there are racial and ethnic disparities in who receives screening. Individuals lacking appropriate CRC screening cite various reasons for nonadherence, including lack of provider recommendation for screening. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the association between patient race and lack of provider recommendation for CRC screening as the primary reason for screening nonadherence.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional observational study of individuals aged 50 to 75 years from the 2009 California Health Interview Survey who reported nonadherence to 2008 United States Preventive Service Task Force CRC screening guidelines. The outcome was self-report that the main reason for not undergoing CRC screening was lack of a physician recommendation ("non-recommendation") for screening. We performed logistic regression to determine significant predictors of non-recommendation, with particular attention to the role of race.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 5,793 unscreened subjects. Of the subjects, 19.1% reported that lack of a provider recommendation was the main reason for CRC nonscreening. African Americans (adjusted odds ratio (adj. OR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-2.05) and English-speaking Asians (adj. OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.24-2.20) were more likely than whites to report physician non-recommendation as the main reason for lack of screening. Asian non-English speakers, however, were less likely to report physician non-recommendation (adj. OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11-0.91).

CONCLUSION

Racial minorities are less likely than whites to receive a physician recommendation for CRC screening. Future research should evaluate why race appears to influence provider recommendations to pursue CRC screening; this is an important step to reduce disparities in CRC screening and lessen the burden of CRC in the United States.

Disability and health behavior change

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

We conducted a review of four health behavior change (HBC) theories (Health Belief, Theory of Planned Behavior, Social Cognitive, and Transtheoretical) to consider how these theories conceptually apply to people with disabilities.

METHODS

We identified five common constructs across HBC theories and examined how these commonalities fit within the International Classification of Function (ICF).

RESULTS

Four of the HBC constructs appear to be Personal Factors within the ICF, while the fifth represents Environmental Factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the ICF framework to understand disability and HBC, we propose that including a sense of meaning as another personal factor will further develop HBC theories that lead to more effective HBC interventions for people with disabilities.