Dataset Information

Applying critical systems thinking to social prescribing: a relational model of stakeholder "buy-in".

ABSTRACT:

Background

Social prescribing (SP) allows health professionals to refer primary care patients toward health and wellbeing interventions and activities in the local community. Now widely implemented across the UK and adopted in other nations, questions arise concerning the modelling of present and future schemes, including challenges to full engagement encountered by stakeholders, which lie beyond the scope of traditional evaluations. Critical Systems Thinking (CST) allows for holistic analysis of fields where multiple stakeholders hold diverse interests and unequal power.

Methods

We use CST to (a) critically examine a developing rural social prescribing scheme from multiple stakeholder perspectives and (b) present a relational model for local social prescribing schemes. Our fieldwork included 24 in-depth interviews, regular planning meetings with key stakeholders, and discussions with those involved with national and international SP landscaping. A modified grounded theory approach was used for the analysis, and to consider the core elements of social prescribing sustainability.

Results

Our study confirms that local social prescribing schemes must operate with numerous stakeholder interests in mind, seeking to address real life social complexity and offer integrated solutions to multifaceted issues. Three main areas are discussed: holistic vision and boundary judgments; barriers and facilitators; relational issues and "emotional buy in". Problems for staff include selecting suitable clients, feedback and technological issues and funding and evaluation pressures. Barriers for clients include health, transport and expense issues, also lack of prior information and GP involvement. Emotional "buy-in" emerged as essential for all stakeholders, but hard to sustain. Based on our findings we propose a positive relational model comprising shared vision, confidence and commitment; motivation and encouragement, support and wellbeing focus, collaborative relationships, communication and feedback, access to information /resources, learning in and from action, with emotional "buy-in" at its heart.

Conclusion

Those implementing social prescribing in different localities inevitably face hard choices about what and whom to include. Research on the sustainability of social prescribing remains limited, studies are required to ascertain which "holistic" models of social prescribing work best for which communities, who are the main beneficiaries of these approaches and how "buy-in" is best sustained.

SUBMITTER: Fixsen A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7312116 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Commercial poultry is often farmed in high-density facilities, therefore, predisposing exposure to threats of infectious diseases. Studies suggest that it is likely that farmers have little motivation to practise on-farm biosecurity. In Taiwan, where high-density intensive poultry production is commonplace, unfortunately, several avian influenza outbreaks have occurred over the past decade despite the establishment of biosecurity procedures. To develop effective interventions, it is essential to understand the determinants of farmers' biosecurity mindset through systems thinking. In this qualitative study, we directly explored the opinions of Taiwan's chicken farmers, and a grounded theory analysis was performed. The study revealed that farmers allocate resources based on their justification for the optimisation of resource utilisation, and biosecurity is the most concerning challenge. Farmers focus on the economic aspects of their production systems, particularly when the implementation of biosecurity increases production costs, and there are multifaceted, complex barriers to implementing on-farm biosecurity. Although the participant farmers accepted to take major responsibility for disease management, paradoxically, some farmers blamed the practicality of government regulations and government employees' attitudes. Additionally, the farmers rejected the government's intentions to ask farmers to take major responsibility for the outbreaks of avian influenza while some of them intended to ignore the perceived risks. Government interventions that were considered not directly related to biosecurity also negatively influenced farmers' willingness to improve biosecurity. Using the interview results together with information in the scientific literature, we constructed a modified six-level social-ecological model to explain the complex influences of macro socio-economic conditions on farmers' biosecurity mindset. The novelty of this research lies in its wider relevance to Taiwan's chicken production industry in that it provides first-hand evidence-based knowledge to demonstrate a wide number of determinants of farmers' biosecurity mindset. This social-ecological model highlights the importance of systems thinking for the development of behavioural interventions and allows adaptation to the local context. The findings of this study have relevance to Taiwan's chicken production industry and potentially to similar systems in other countries in the wider region and should result in more effective animal health management at the farm level.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cultural competency describes interventions that aim to improve accessibility and effectiveness of health services for people from ethnic minority backgrounds. Interventions include interpreter services, migrant peer educators and health worker training to provide culturally competent care. Very few studies have focussed on cultural competency for migrant service use in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMIC). Migrants and refugees in Thailand and Malaysia report difficulties in accessing health systems and discrimination by service providers. In this paper we describe stakeholder perceptions of migrants' and health workers' language and cultural competency, and how this affects migrant workers' health, especially in Malaysia where an interpreter system has not yet been formalised. METHOD:We conducted in-depth interviews with stakeholders in Malaysia (N = 44) and Thailand (N = 50), alongside policy document review in both countries. Data were analysed thematically. Results informed development of Systems Thinking diagrams hypothesizing potential intervention points to improve cultural competency, namely via addressing language barriers. RESULTS:Language ability was a core tenet of cultural competency as described by participants in both countries. Malay was perceived to be an easy language that migrants could learn quickly, with perceived proficiency differing by source country and length of stay in Malaysia. Language barriers were a source of frustration for both migrants and health workers, which compounded communication of complex conditions including mental health as well as obtaining informed consent from migrant patients. Health workers in Malaysia used strategies including google translate and hand gestures to communicate, while migrant patients were encouraged to bring friends to act as informal interpreters during consultations. Current health services are not migrant friendly, which deters use. Concerns around overuse of services by non-citizens among the domestic population may partly explain the lack of policy support for cultural competency in Malaysia. Service provision for migrants in Thailand was more culturally sensitive as formal interpreters, known as Migrant Health Workers (MHW), could be hired in public facilities, as well as Migrant Health Volunteers (MHV) who provide basic health education in communities. CONCLUSION:Perceptions of overuse by migrants in a health system acts as a barrier against system or institutional level improvements for cultural competency, in an already stretched health system. At the micro-level, language interventions with migrant workers appear to be the most feasible leverage point but raises the question of who should bear responsibility for cost and provision-employers, the government, or migrants themselves.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a significant push to change the trajectory of youth mental ill-health and suicide globally. Ensuring that young people have access to services that meet their individual needs and are easily accessible is a priority. Genuine stakeholder engagement in mental health system design is critical to ensure that system strengthening is likely to be successful within these complex environments. There is limited literature describing engagement processes undertaken by research teams in mental health program implementation and planning. This protocol describes the methods that will be used to engage local communities using systems science methods to mobilize knowledge and action to strengthen youth mental health services.MethodsUsing participatory action research principles, the research team will actively engage with local communities to ensure genuine user-led participatory systems modelling processes and enhance knowledge mobilisation within research sites. Ensuring that culturally diverse and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community voices are included will support this process. A rigorous site selection process will be undertaken to ensure that the community is committed and has capacity to actively engage in the research activities. Stakeholder engagement commences from the site selection process with the aim to build trust between researchers and key stakeholders. The research team will establish a variety of engagement resources and make opportunities available to each site depending on their local context, needs and audiences they wish to target during the process.DiscussionThis protocol describes the inclusive community engagement and knowledge mobilization process for the Right care, first time, where you live research Program. This Program will use an iterative and adaptive approach that considers the social, economic, and political context of each community and attempts to maximise research engagement. A theoretical framework for applying systems approaches to knowledge mobilization that is flexible will enable the implementation of a participatory action research approach. This protocol commits to a rigorous and genuine stakeholder engagement process that can be applied in mental health research implementation.