Do people perceive benefits in the use of social prescribing to address loneliness and/or social isolation? A qualitative meta-synthesis of the literature.

Social prescribing is a means by which clinical services can link individuals who have psychological, social and/or practical needs with non-clinical services within their local community. There is a lack of empirical evidence investigating whether social prescribing helps such individuals and which interventions are the most effective and accepted by them to address their loneliness. This meta-synthesis aimed to synthesise findings from qualitative studies exploring experiences of people (of any age) who participated in any social prescribing intervention aimed at loneliness and/or social isolation to ascertain whether they felt it helped address loneliness/isolation and the potential mechanisms by which this might occur. We conducted a systematic search of 5 electronic databases and 4 other databases that would yield grey literature in April 2021 to identify qualitative articles on this topic written in English or French. We assessed the quality of the included studies using recognised tools, and synthesised findings using the approach of thematic analysis. We identified 19 records analysed (e.g. journal articles) from 18 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Our analysis identified three themes: (1) increased sense of wellbeing (with six subthemes), (2) factors that engendered an ongoing desire to connect with others, and (3) perceived drawbacks of social prescribing. These themes illustrate the benefits and difficulties people perceive in social prescribing programmes addressing loneliness and social isolation, with an overall balance of more benefits than drawbacks in social prescribing participation. However, given the unhelpful aspects of social prescribing identified by some participants, greater thought should be given to potential harms. Moreover, further qualitative and quantitative research is needed to better understand mechanisms and effectiveness, and how different components of social prescribing might be best matched to individual participants.

A Systematic Review of Studies Describing the Effectiveness, Acceptability, and Potential Harms of Place-Based Interventions to Address Loneliness and Mental Health Problems.

Given the links between the built environment and loneliness, there is interest in using place-based approaches (addressing built environment characteristics and related socio-spatial factors) in local communities to tackle loneliness and mental health problems. However, few studies have described the effectiveness, acceptability, or potential harms of such interventions. This review aimed to synthesize the literature describing local community-based interventions that target place-based factors to address loneliness and mental health problems, informing the development of future public health approaches. We searched PsycINFO, Medline, and Embase using a structured search strategy to identify English-language studies evaluating the effectiveness, acceptability, and potential harms of place-based community interventions in addressing loneliness and mental health problems, both in general and clinical populations. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, classified as evaluating provision of community facilities (such as clubhouses), active engagement in local green spaces, and housing regeneration. None were randomised trials. Quantitative and qualitative findings suggested promising effects and/or acceptability of six interventions, with minimal potential harms. There is a clear need for randomised trials or quasi-experimental studies of place-based interventions to describe their effectiveness in addressing loneliness and mental health problems, as well as complementary qualitative work investigating acceptability. This will inform future policy development.