Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers

Declan J. O'Sullivan; Lindsay M. Bearne; Janas M. Harrington; Joseph G. McVeigh

doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13762.1

Home Browse Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]

Declan J. O'Sullivan ¹, Lindsay M. Bearne², Janas M. Harrington³, Joseph G. McVeigh¹

PUBLISHED 01 Sep 2023

Author details Author details

¹ Discipline of Physiotherapy, School of Clinical Therapies, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, T12X7OA, Ireland
² Population Health Sciences Research Institute, University of London, Cranmer Terrace London, England, SW17 0RE, UK
³ School of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, T12 XF62, Ireland

Declan J. O'Sullivan
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Lindsay M. Bearne
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Janas M. Harrington
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Joseph G. McVeigh
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Ageing Populations collection.

This article is included in the Public and Patient Involvement collection.

Abstract

Background
Long-term conditions (LTC) are a leading cause of reduced quality of life and early mortality. People with LTC are living longer with increasing economic and social needs. Novel patient centred care pathways are required to support traditional medical management of these patients. Social Prescribing (SP) has gained popularity as a non-medical approach to support patients with LTC and their unmet health needs. The current focus group study aims to explore the experiences and perceptions to SP interventions from the perspective of people with long-term conditions, link workers, healthcare providers and community-based services.
Methods
Six-eight participants will be recruited into three specific 60-minute focus groups relative to their role as a patient, link worker and community-based service. Eight-12 participants with a Health care provider and GP background will be interviewed individually online. The participants within these focus groups and semi-structured interviews will be invited to provide opinions on what factors they think are important to the successful implementation of a SP service from their respective stakeholder positions. The data will be recorded and exported to NVivo software for further analysis using Thematic Reflexive analysis methods. Coded categorical data will inform emerging themes from which a narrative summary will be consolidated and presented for dissemination.
Conclusion
The conclusions made from this study will help inform the next study, which will aim to develop a pilot SP service for patients with LTC, as part of an overall larger project.

Keywords

Social Prescribing, long-term conditions, focus groups, link worker, community health worker, self-management

Corresponding author: Declan J. O'Sullivan

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2023 O'Sullivan DJ et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: O'Sullivan DJ, Bearne LM, Harrington JM and McVeigh JG. Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2023, 6:42 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13762.1) First published: 01 Sep 2023, 6:42 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13762.1) Latest published: 09 Jan 2024, 6:42 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13762.3)

Introduction

Background and rationale

Long-term conditions (LTC) are typically characterised as non-self-limiting, persistent specific illness or multiple illnesses co-existing simultaneously^1,2 which cause reduced quality of life and physical capacity and increases with age³. Population growth, decreased socioeconomic circumstances and increasing age of individuals living with LTC place an extensive burden on society⁴. Management of LTCs are challenging. Biomedical approaches targeting the underlying pathophysiology of the disease⁵ have failed to address how an individual experiences ill-health⁶. It is becoming evident that inadequacies in health provision to those in the middle to low socioeconomic groups requires evidence-based and cost-effective methods of managing patients with multifaceted LTC^7–9. Self-management approaches¹⁰ including positive lifestyle changes and improving health literacy^11–13 may reduce economic burden by empowering individuals to cope with their condition.

Social Prescribing (SP) is a self-management approach involving the utilisation of services already embedded in the community, and may act as short and long-term support for patients with health and wellbeing issues¹⁴. SP emerged over a decade ago¹⁵ and is growing across many countries to support those lower socioeconomic communities who have increased prevalence of long-term health and wellbeing conditions¹⁶. SP involves the use of a lay person “link worker” or “community health worker” who facilitates the acquisition of tertiary non-clinical services after receiving a referral from a General Practitioner (GP) or other health care providers (HCP)^17,18. SP models may be categorised as ‘broad’, involving light touch signposting to financial, employment or housing support services¹⁹; referral to community groups (art/exercise therapy)¹⁴ or more ‘specific’ where support is more intensive to address unmet physical and mental health needs^16,20. The evidence base around the use of SP models is emerging but of mixed results^14,21,22. Reviews have highlighted the lack of robust methodological evaluation^22,23, inappropriate use of comparative outcome measures, high attrition rate and lack of appropriate controls^14,24 as barriers to proper scientific evaluation. With so many different SP models each reflecting the community’s needs, it is difficult to establish what factors influence its successful implementation from the perspective and experiences of all the relevant stakeholders. This lack of knowledge and understanding has prompted the need for this qualitative research.

Aims and objectives. The aim of this qualitative study is to explore the experience and perceptions of SP interventions in people with LTCs and those link workers, health care professionals and community-based services who are engaged in SP interventions.

Study design

Design

This study will utilise qualitative methodology²⁵ including three semi-structured focus groups and one group of one to one interviews to collect information from stakeholders directly involved in SP interventions; person, link worker, HCP, GPs and community based services²⁶. A qualitative descriptive design²⁷ will be used to analyse information gathered from those stakeholders involved in SP interventions. This design will enable participants to voice their opinions and permit researchers to explore the phenomenon of interest to provide knowledge and understanding²⁸. Three focus groups (n=6–8) will be conducted with people with long-term conditions, link workers, and community-based services. Eight to twelve one to one online semi-structured interviews will be conducted with HCP’s and GPs. Focus groups and interviews will be continued until sufficient information power has been reached²⁹.

The focus groups and online interviews will be facilitated by Declan O’Sullivan (DOS) (principal researcher). A predefined interview guide will be developed and piloted with people with LTC and HCP³⁰. The questioning schedule will be utilised to guide the focus group discussion. The focus group discussions will be held in person or online via Microsoft Teams. The health care providers and GP’s will be interviewed one to one in person or online via Microsoft Teams. Each focus group discussion will be 60 to 90 minutes long. Each interview will last 35–45 minutes.

Participants

Sample

Thirty participants will be recruited for three focus group discussions and one to one semi-structured interviews in order to reach information power.

Inclusion criteria

The participants recruited for this study will be:

1. People with LTCs who are currently or have in the past engaged with SP interventions (within the last six months). Participants will be over the age of 18years and be able to communicate in English (n=6–8)

2. Link workers embedded within a community who facilitate the implementation of a SP service on behalf of a voluntary or governmental agency (n=6–8)

3. Healthcare practitioners (Physiotherapists, Occupational therapists, Speech and language therapists, Social workers and GPs) who currently refer or previously referred patients directly to the link worker within a SP service (n=8–10)

4. Existing or past community-based service providers of SP interventions (n=6–8).

Exclusion criteria

1. Individuals who do not have a LTC or are under the age of 18. Those with existing psychiatric illness or insufficient English to enable informed consent to the study or where participation in the study may be detrimental to their health.

Ethical and regulatory considerations

Patient information sheets (Extended Data) will be provided and written informed consent (Appendix 5) will be acquired prior to and digitally recorded on the date of the focus group discussion. Participant confidentiality will be prioritised throughout the duration of this study. All participants’ data will be systematically anonymised digitally and only accessible by the principal researcher (DOS) and 1^st research supervisor (JMcV). The participants may withdraw from the study at any stage prior to and after the focus group discussion and their data will not be used in this study and deleted fully. This study will be submitted for ethical approval from University College Cork, Clinical Research Ethics Committee (CREC).

Recruitment

Participants (n=30) will be recruited voluntarily to take part in three focus groups and semi-structured interviews across the Health Service Executive, South-Southwest hospital group regions. We aim to have 6–8 participants per focus group and eight-12 semi-structured interviews.

Purposive sampling will be used to recruit participants for each focus group and interview group:

Group one: Adults with long-term conditions (n=6–8) from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds

Group two: Healthcare providers including physiotherapist, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists, GPs, and social workers (n=8–12)

Group three: A ‘Gate Keeper’ will be used to recruit link workers (n=6–8) for a focus group.

Group four: Facilitators working in community-based services (n=6–8)

To recruit participants for group one, group three and group four focus groups, a formal introductory email (Extended data) will be forwarded to the manager (Gate Keeper) of SP interventions in the South-South West Hospital Group (SSWHG) in Munster. This email will inform them of the details of the study, how many participants are required, and a request to share information about participation with their staff (link workers), patients and community-based SP services as appropriate (e.g. via word of mouth, telephone or email). Participants for this group will also be recruited through flyers, social media posts and posters made by the research team and placed in community resource centres, General Practitioner (GP) practices and community-based services already providing SP interventions.

Participants for group two focus group will be recruited with a formal introductory email (Extended data) to the managers (Gate Keepers) of local physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy and social worker departments outlining details of the study, how many participants are required, and a request to share information about participation with their staff. GP’s will be recruited through a formal introductory email (Extended data) to local clinics outlining why GPs are being recruited, details of the study, the duration of the interview and how the interview will be conducted.

Groups two and four may also be recruited indirectly through flyers, social media posts and posters containing the contact details of the principal researcher (DOS).

Interested participants can contact the principal researcher (DOS) who will arrange a time to contact them by telephone. At that initial contact, DOS will explain the study, answer any questions, and screen the participant against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. DOS will provide potential participants a plain language participant information leaflet Extended data) with relevant information about the study and a consent form (Extended data).

Focus group procedure

All participants will be provided with a written information sheet and written consent form prior to commencement of the focus group discussion. The participants will be forwarded a M-Teams³¹ meeting link by email for the date and time of the focus group one month prior to the focus group discussion by email and an email reminder one week prior to it. An interview schedule will be formulated by principle researcher (DOS), reviewed by JMcV and piloted prior to the focus group discussion. The facilitator (DOS) will provide at the beginning of each focus group a brief summary/reminder of the purpose of the study and focus group, and outline focus group etiquette and conduct rules. The facilitator will then ask participants to introduce themselves very briefly. There will be eight to 14 open ended questions designed to encourage engagement based around sub-themes of; attitudes and expectations; experience of SP; impact of SP; recommendations and finally exit questions to determine if there were any outstanding or new themes that had not been explored. Participants will be reimbursed for any financial cost associated with travel to and from the focus group if they are held in person. If the focus groups are held in person, a suitable venue will be identified with appropriate wheelchair access. The discussion will be preceded by a quick synopsis of the aims and objectives of the study and moderated by DOS in its entirety and guided by the interview guide. A non-participant mediator (JMcV) will track the questions and ensure all topics are followed up.

Interview procedure

All participants will be provided with a written information sheet and written consent form prior to commencement of the interviews. The participants will be forwarded a M-Teams meeting link by email for the date and time of the interview one month prior to the interview and an email reminder one week prior to it. An interview schedule will be formulated by DOS, reviewed by JMcV and piloted prior to the interview data collection. The interview will be recorded once consent has been achieved.

Data collection and analysis

Qualitative data will be collected via the focus groups and interviews. Audio-recording will begin once all participants are present and seated to facilitate transcription. A semi-structured focus group schedule will be used to guide discussion and will include questions and associated prompts and probes. Field notes will be taken. Focus groups will be audio recorded using an Olympus Digital Voice Recorder WS-853 or equivalent. Audio-recordings will be immediately transferred to the secure OneDrive folder and deleted from the recording device. The audio files will be transcribed anonymously by the principle researcher (DOS) with all identifiers removed and replaced with an ID number through an on-line proprietary software transcribing software (Otter.ai)³² or open access otranscribe³³. If the focus groups or one to one interviews are conducted on line with Microsoft Teams³¹, an automated transcribing application embedded within this software will perform the transcription. The data will be exported to a proprietary software NVivo³⁴ or open access Aquad³⁵ which is username and password protected software used for the analysis of unstructured text as found in a group discussion^34,36. The NVivo software will be stored on the principal researcher’s (DOS) laptop, which is, also pin code protected. A further encrypted pin will be required to access the data file when using the NVivo software.

A qualitative descriptive design will be utilised for the analysis of the data²⁸. The data will be scrutinised qualitatively using Reflexive Thematic analysis framework^37,38 to ensure transparency and reduce bias³⁹. Using an inductive approach, the following six-step methodology will be employed; data familiarisation; data coding; generation of initial themes; developing and reviewing of themes; redefining, defining and naming of themes and finally write up³⁸ to enable ‘illustrative quotations’⁴⁰ to consolidate narrative conclusions⁴¹. After ‘member checking’⁴² the final phase of the thematic analysis will involve interpretation and reporting of findings.

Data management

Recorded audio files will be saved only until transcription is complete, at which time they will be deleted by the principal researcher DOS. Transcripts will be stored in a secure folder on the project OneDrive. We will store any paper consent forms until such time as they can be scanned and stored electronically, expecting that many consent forms will be scanned and returned by email by the participants. Paper consent forms will then be shredded. We will store participant’s consent information (Extended data) on a secure Excel file on the project OneDrive folder.

The electronic data will be stored on an encrypted file on the UCC SharePoint in line with the University’s Code of Research Conduct Version 2.3.2019. The qualitative data will be stored in a .sav file on the UCC secure server (OneDrive) on the personal work computers of the principal researcher (Declan O’ Sullivan) and PhD supervisor Dr J. McVeigh. We do not anticipate storing any physical data, as consent forms will be shredded and saved electronically.

The electronic data will be stored in line with the Universities Code of Research conduct, for at least 15 years after the publication of any reports or papers arising from the study, after which time the principal researcher DOS will destroy the data.

This electronic dataset will remain within the School of Clinical Therapies and will not be made publicly available for open data sharing purposes. Participants in the focus groups will not be asked for their consent to share their data publicly. The analysed anonymous data will likely be presented as project output in dissemination such as conferences, journal submissions, and will be included in the final report. Declan O Sullivan: the principal researcher will be responsible for storing and protecting the data collected. Access to this data will be restricted to the research team. Generated data associated with this research will be stored for a minimum of ten years according to university regulations and the data will not be reused. A PDF of the final version of this study will be forwarded to the participants of the focus group by email or post and will simultaneously be submitted to an Open Access journal for publication and dissemination.

Definition of end of study

The focus group will terminate when all participants have departed from the focus group venue. This study will end when the final version of the study has been approved by the research team and it has been submitted to an appropriate journal for publishing.

Quality assurance procedures

The quality of this study will be underpinned by ensuring there is clarity of purpose; recruiting appropriate participants; skilful moderator with effective questions; detailed and systematic analysis of the data⁴³.

Protocol study status

This study is awaiting ethics approval

Expenses and benefits

Participants of the focus group discussion will be remunerated for the cost of travel to and from the venue hosting the focus group discussion.

Insurance

All research involving patients/volunteers must be approved by UCC Sponsor's Office before study commencement date. When this approval is granted all participants of this study will be indemnified in accordance with the terms and conditions of the UCC policy.

Data availability statement

Extended data

Figshare: Experience and Perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a Qualitative study with people with Long-term conditions, Link workers and Health care providers. O’Sullivan et al. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.23527983

This project contains the following extended data:

Appendix 1 Participant Information Sheet-Patient

Appendix 2 Participant Information Sheet-Link Worker

Appendix 3 Participant Information Sheet-Healthcare Provider

Appendix 4 Participant Information Sheet-Community based service

Appendix 5 Consent form

Appendix 6 Email to 'gatekeeper'-link worker

Appendix 7 Email to 'gatekeeper'-Healthcare provider

Appendix 8 Email to GP clinics

Appendix 9 Interview guide

Appendix 10 Protocol Amendment History

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Dhere A: Managing complex long-term conditions and multimorbidity. Clin Med (Lond). 2016; 16(6): 545–547. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
2. Thrall JH: Prevalence and costs of chronic disease in a health care system structured for treatment of acute illness. Radiology. 2005; 235(1): 9–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Blyth FM, Noguchi N: Chronic musculoskeletal pain and its impact on older people. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2017; 31(2): 160–168. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Picco L, Achilla E, Abdin E, et al.: Economic burden of multimorbidity among older adults: impact on healthcare and societal costs. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016; 16: 173. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
5. Farre A, Rapley T: The New Old (and Old New) Medical Model: Four Decades Navigating the Biomedical and Psychosocial Understandings of Health and Illness. Healthcare (Basel). 2017; 5(4): 88. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
6. Kuipers SJ, Cramm JM, Nieboer AP: The importance of patient-centered care and co-creation of care for satisfaction with care and physical and social well-being of patients with multi-morbidity in the primary care setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019; 19(1): 13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
7. Briggs AM, Cross MJ, Hoy DG, et al.: Musculoskeletal Health Conditions Represent a Global Threat to Healthy Aging: A Report for the 2015 World Health Organization World Report on Ageing and Health. Gerontologist. 2016; 56 Suppl 2: S243–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Briggs AM, Woolf AD, Dreinhöfer K, et al.: Reducing the global burden of musculoskeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ. 2018; 96(5): 366–368. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
9. Cimmino MA, Ferrone C, Cutolo M: Epidemiology of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2011; 25(2): 173–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. Reynolds R, Dennis S, Hasan I, et al.: A systematic review of chronic disease management interventions in primary care. BMC Fam Pract. 2018; 19(1): 11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
11. Musekamp G, Gerlich C, Ehlebracht-König I, et al.: Evaluation of a self-management patient education program for patients with fibromyalgia syndrome: study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016; 17(1): 55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
12. Oliveira VC, Ferreira PH, Maher CG, et al.: Effectiveness of self-management of low back pain: systematic review with meta-analysis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012; 64(11): 1739–48. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. Mackey LM, Doody C, Werner EL, et al.: Self-Management Skills in Chronic Disease Management: What Role Does Health Literacy Have? Med Decis Making. 2016; 36(6): 741–59. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Chatterjee HJ, Camic PM, Lockyer B, et al.: Non-clinical community interventions: a systematised review of social prescribing schemes. Arts & Health. 2018; 10(2): 97–123. Publisher Full Text
15. Buck D, Ewbank L: What is social prescribing. Kings Fund, 2020. Reference Source
16. Morse DF, Sandhu S, Mulligan K, et al.: Global developments in social prescribing. BMJ Glob Health. 2022; 7(5): e008524. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
17. Pescheny JV, Gunn LH, Pappas Y, et al.: The impact of the Luton social prescribing programme on mental well-being: a quantitative before-and-after study. J Public Health (Oxf). 2021; 43(1): e69–e76. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Polley M, Chatterjee H, Clayton G: Social prescribing: community-based referral in public health. Perspect Public Health. 2018; 138(1): 18–19. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Hassan SM, Giebel C, Morasae EK, et al.: Social prescribing for people with mental health needs living in disadvantaged communities: the Life Rooms model. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020; 20(1): 19. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
20. Kiely B, Croke A, O'Shea E, et al.: Effectiveness of link workers providing social prescribing on health outcomes and costs for adult patients in primary care and community settings. A protocol for a systematic review of the literature [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res. 2020; 2: 21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
21. Husk K, Blockley K, Lovell R, Bethel A, et al.: What approaches to social prescribing work, for whom, and in what circumstances? A protocol for a realist review. Syst Rev. 2016; 5: 93. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
22. Kiely B, Croke A, O'Shea M, et al.: Effect of social prescribing link workers on health outcomes and costs for adults in primary care and community settings: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2022; 12(10): e062951. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
23. Pescheny JV, Randhawa G, Pappas Y: The impact of social prescribing services on service users: a systematic review of the evidence. Eur J Public Health. 2020; 30(4): 664–673. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
24. Bickerdike L, Booth A, Wilson PM, et al.: Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(4): e013384. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
25. Kitzinger J: Qualitative Research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ. 1995; 311(7000): 299–302. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
26. Polley M: Social Prescribing Network Conference Report 2016 UK. 2016.
27. Doyle L, McCabe C, Keogh B, et al.: An overview of the qualitative descriptive design within nursing research. J Res Nurs. 2020; 25(5): 443–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
28. Bradshaw C, Atkinson S, Doody O: Employing a Qualitative Description Approach in Health Care Research. Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2017; 4: 2333393617742282. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
29. Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD: Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power. Qual Health Res. 2015; 26(13): 1753–60. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
30. Pedersen B, Delmar C, Falkmer U, et al.: Bridging the gap between interviewer and interviewee: developing an interview guide for individual interviews by means of a focus group. Scand J Caring Sci. 2016; 30(3): 631–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
31. Microsoft: Microsoft Teams. 2017.
32. Otter.ai: Otter.ai- Voice Meeting Notes & Real-time Transcription. California. 2016.
33. Otranscribe: Otranscribe Open Source. 2023.
34. NVivo: NVivo: NVivo qualitative data analysis software. QSR International Pty Ltd Melbourne, Australia. 2015.
35. AQUAD: Open Access "AQUAD" Qualitative Data Analysis. 2023.
36. Hoover RS, Koerber AL: Using NVivo to Answer the Challenges of Qualitative Research in Professional Communication: Benefits and Best Practices Tutorial. IEEE Trans Prof Commun. 2011; 54(1): 68–82. Publisher Full Text
37. Braun V, Clarke V: Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2019; 11(4): 589–97. Publisher Full Text
38. Braun V, Clarke V: One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qual Res Psychol. 2021; 18(3): 328–52. Publisher Full Text
39. Korstjens I, Moser A: Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. Eur J Gen Pract. 2018; 24(1): 120–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
40. O.Nyumba T, Wilson K, Derrick CJ, et al.: The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods Ecol Evol. 2018; 9(1): 20–32. Publisher Full Text
41. Charmaz K: Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. sage; 2006. Reference Source
42. Birt L, Scott S, Cavers D, et al.: Member Checking: A Tool to Enhance Trustworthiness or Merely a Nod to Validation? Qual Health Res. 2016; 26(13): 1802–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
43. Krueger RA: Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. 1993. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 01 Sep 2023

Author details Author details

Lindsay M. Bearne
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Janas M. Harrington
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Joseph G. McVeigh
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (3)

version 3

Revised

Published: 09 Jan 2024, 6:42

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13762.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 12 Oct 2023, 6:42

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13762.2

version 1

Published: 01 Sep 2023, 6:42

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13762.1

© 2023 O'Sullivan DJ et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

VIEWS

1157

downloads

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

O'Sullivan DJ, Bearne LM, Harrington JM and McVeigh JG. Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2023, 6:42 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13762.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 01 Sep 2023

Views

Reviewer Report 06 Oct 2023

Fiona Cramp, School of Health and Social Wellbeing, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15054.r36023

First line of the abstract Methods - change 'Six-eight...' to 'Six to eight...' and 'link worker and community-based service' to 'link worker or community-based service'. Sentence two, change to 'Eight to12 health care providers and GPs will be interviewed individually online.'

Background and rationale
First sentence: '...and increases with age³' should read 'and increase with age³'.
'Management of LTCs are challenging' should be 'Management of LTCs is challenging'.

Overall, the background sets the scene for the study by identifying the limited evidence base and wide range of models of social prescribing.  It would be useful to include a definition of self-management towards the beginning of the background.

The aim of the research is clear and appropriate. It is clear that this research is needed and overall methods are appropriate.

Design: From paragraph one it is not entirely clear how many focus groups are planned as initially it is stated that there will be three focus groups and subsequently there is a statement that focus groups will be continued until sufficient information power has been reached. This needs further clarification. A sentence also needs to be added to justify the difference data collection methods for each stakeholder group. The abstract states that the focus groups will be 60 minutes but the main text indicates 60-90 minutes, this needs to be consistent.

Sample: It is not clear how the proposed overall sample of thirty has been reached. How do you know that information power will be achieved with this number? The sentence relating to numbers per focus group should appear under the sample rather that in the recruitment section: 'We aim to have 6–8 participants per focus group and eight-12 semi-structured interviews.'

The background indicated that the middle to low socioeconomic groups were those with greatest support needs. How will you ensure that there is adequate representation from this population within your sample?

It needs to be made clear that the 'exclusion criteria' are specific to the patient population.

Focus group procedure - Reword the following sentence: 'The participants will be forwarded a M-Teams³¹ meeting link by email for the date and time of the focus group one month prior to the focus group discussion by email and an email reminder one week prior to it.' Suggestion: 'The participants will be sent an email with a M-Teams³¹ meeting link one month prior to the focus group and a reminder one week in advance clearly indicating the date and time for the discussion.'

Will the moderator be present during the focus groups?

How will you decide whether to conduct the focus group via Microsoft Teams or in person?

Data collection and analysis and data management sections are clear.

The paper could be enhanced with consideration of the researchers perspective and how the data that is collected will subsequently be used.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: In the past four years I have co-published with one of the authors (McVeigh). I have no other competing interests.

Reviewer Expertise: Physiotherapy, long term conditions, complex interventions

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 21 Nov 2023

Declan J. O Sullivan, Discipline of Physiotherapy, School of Clinical Therapies, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, T12X7OA, Ireland

21 Nov 2023

Author Response

19^th Oct 2023,

Re: Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers.
Authors: O’Sullivan D1, Bearne ... Continue reading 19^th Oct 2023,

Re: Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers.
Authors: O’Sullivan D1, Bearne LM.2, Harrington JM.3, McVeigh JG1

Dear Prof Cramp,
Many thanks for reviewing my protocol and for your helpful comments and advice. Please see below a point by point response to your comments. The relevant text changes are highlighted in the main study protocol.

Kind regards
Declan O’Sullivan

Response to reviewer

1. First line of the abstract Methods - change 'Six-eight...' to 'Six to eight...' and 'link worker and community-based service' to 'link worker or community-based service'..'
Response: Thank you; I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 25)

2. Sentence two, change to 'Eight to 12 health care providers and GPs will be interviewed individually online
Response: Thank you; I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 26)

3. Background and rationale
First sentence: '...and increases with age (3)' should read 'and increase with age (3)'.
Response: Thank you I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 47)

4. 'Management of LTCs are challenging’ should be 'Management of LTCs is challenging'.
Response: Thank you I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 49)

5. Overall, the background sets the scene for the study by identifying the limited evidence base and wide range of models of social prescribing. It would be useful to include a definition of self-management towards the beginning of the background.
Response: Thank you I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 52-55)

6. Design: From paragraph one it is not entirely clear how many focus groups are planned as initially it is stated that there will be three focus groups and subsequently there is a statement that focus groups will be continued until sufficient information power has been reached. This needs further clarification. A sentence also needs to be added to justify the difference data collection methods for each stakeholder group.
Response: Thank you for your point. I have amended the text and added some clarification, hopefully it is much clearer for the reader (line 84-102).

7. The abstract states that the focus groups will be 60 minutes but the main text indicates 60-90 minutes, this needs to be consistent.
Response: Thank you. I can see that now. I have changed the text accordingly (line 25)

8. Sample: It is not clear how the proposed overall sample of thirty has been reached. How do you know that information power will be achieved with this number?
Response: Thank you for your point. I am aware of the difficulties in identifying the correct sample size to validate our findings. I am aware of what factors might influence the arrival at an optimal sample size and the necessity to extract all thematic codes before deciding if more participants are required to reach information power. I think I have addressed your concerns in lines 105-120

9. The sentence relating to numbers per focus group should appear under the sample rather that in the recruitment section: 'We aim to have 6–8 participants per focus group and eight-12 semi-structured interviews.'
Response: Thank you. I have amended this in text (line 106)

10. The background indicated that the middle to low socioeconomic groups were those with greatest support needs. How will you ensure that there is adequate representation from this population within your sample?
Response: Thank you for your comment. I have highlighted in text that I will use purposive sampling to recruit suitable participants from existing SP services and GP clinics and health resource centres from middle to low socioeconomic areas within the South-Southwest hospital group regions (line 154-156). I have also highlighted this in the inclusion criteria (Line 124).

11. It needs to be made clear that the 'exclusion criteria' are specific to the patient population.
Response: Thank you for your point. I have included this information in text now (line 138).

12. Focus group procedure - Reword the following sentence: 'The participants will be forwarded a M-Teams31 meeting link by email for the date and time of the focus group one month prior to the focus group discussion by email and an email reminder one week prior to it.' Suggestion: 'The participants will be sent an email with a M-Teams31 meeting link one month prior to the focus group and a reminder one week in advance clearly indicating the date and time for the discussion.'
Response: I can see this does require some grammar changes and thank you for your suggestion. I have changed this within the text (line 193-195)

13. Will the moderator be present during the focus groups?
Response: Yes the moderator will be present (line 197).

14. How will you decide whether to conduct the focus group via Microsoft Teams or in person?
Response: The recruitment sample, availability of the participants to travel to a suitable venue and finally a COVID resurgence with governmental restrictions will decide whether the focus groups will be held in person or via M-Teams.

15. The paper could be enhanced with consideration of the researcher’s perspective and how the data that is collected will subsequently be used.
Response: Thank you again for your advice. I feel I have addressed this point sufficiently in response to reviewer 1 comments. I have reworded the abstract (line 35 to 37) and background (Lines 71-73) to convey how the data from this study will influence a later study examining the effectiveness of a tailored SP model to MSK long-term conditions
19^th Oct 2023,

Re: Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers.
Authors: O’Sullivan D1, Bearne LM.2, Harrington JM.3, McVeigh JG1

Dear Prof Cramp,
Many thanks for reviewing my protocol and for your helpful comments and advice. Please see below a point by point response to your comments. The relevant text changes are highlighted in the main study protocol.

Kind regards
Declan O’Sullivan

Response to reviewer

1. First line of the abstract Methods - change 'Six-eight...' to 'Six to eight...' and 'link worker and community-based service' to 'link worker or community-based service'..'
Response: Thank you; I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 25)

2. Sentence two, change to 'Eight to 12 health care providers and GPs will be interviewed individually online
Response: Thank you; I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 26)

3. Background and rationale
First sentence: '...and increases with age (3)' should read 'and increase with age (3)'.
Response: Thank you I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 47)

4. 'Management of LTCs are challenging’ should be 'Management of LTCs is challenging'.
Response: Thank you I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 49)

5. Overall, the background sets the scene for the study by identifying the limited evidence base and wide range of models of social prescribing. It would be useful to include a definition of self-management towards the beginning of the background.
Response: Thank you I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 52-55)

6. Design: From paragraph one it is not entirely clear how many focus groups are planned as initially it is stated that there will be three focus groups and subsequently there is a statement that focus groups will be continued until sufficient information power has been reached. This needs further clarification. A sentence also needs to be added to justify the difference data collection methods for each stakeholder group.
Response: Thank you for your point. I have amended the text and added some clarification, hopefully it is much clearer for the reader (line 84-102).

7. The abstract states that the focus groups will be 60 minutes but the main text indicates 60-90 minutes, this needs to be consistent.
Response: Thank you. I can see that now. I have changed the text accordingly (line 25)

8. Sample: It is not clear how the proposed overall sample of thirty has been reached. How do you know that information power will be achieved with this number?
Response: Thank you for your point. I am aware of the difficulties in identifying the correct sample size to validate our findings. I am aware of what factors might influence the arrival at an optimal sample size and the necessity to extract all thematic codes before deciding if more participants are required to reach information power. I think I have addressed your concerns in lines 105-120

9. The sentence relating to numbers per focus group should appear under the sample rather that in the recruitment section: 'We aim to have 6–8 participants per focus group and eight-12 semi-structured interviews.'
Response: Thank you. I have amended this in text (line 106)

10. The background indicated that the middle to low socioeconomic groups were those with greatest support needs. How will you ensure that there is adequate representation from this population within your sample?
Response: Thank you for your comment. I have highlighted in text that I will use purposive sampling to recruit suitable participants from existing SP services and GP clinics and health resource centres from middle to low socioeconomic areas within the South-Southwest hospital group regions (line 154-156). I have also highlighted this in the inclusion criteria (Line 124).

11. It needs to be made clear that the 'exclusion criteria' are specific to the patient population.
Response: Thank you for your point. I have included this information in text now (line 138).

12. Focus group procedure - Reword the following sentence: 'The participants will be forwarded a M-Teams31 meeting link by email for the date and time of the focus group one month prior to the focus group discussion by email and an email reminder one week prior to it.' Suggestion: 'The participants will be sent an email with a M-Teams31 meeting link one month prior to the focus group and a reminder one week in advance clearly indicating the date and time for the discussion.'
Response: I can see this does require some grammar changes and thank you for your suggestion. I have changed this within the text (line 193-195)

13. Will the moderator be present during the focus groups?
Response: Yes the moderator will be present (line 197).

14. How will you decide whether to conduct the focus group via Microsoft Teams or in person?
Response: The recruitment sample, availability of the participants to travel to a suitable venue and finally a COVID resurgence with governmental restrictions will decide whether the focus groups will be held in person or via M-Teams.

15. The paper could be enhanced with consideration of the researcher’s perspective and how the data that is collected will subsequently be used.
Response: Thank you again for your advice. I feel I have addressed this point sufficiently in response to reviewer 1 comments. I have reworded the abstract (line 35 to 37) and background (Lines 71-73) to convey how the data from this study will influence a later study examining the effectiveness of a tailored SP model to MSK long-term conditions
Competing Interests: I do not have any conflict of interest declarations Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 21 Nov 2023

Declan J. O Sullivan, Discipline of Physiotherapy, School of Clinical Therapies, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, T12X7OA, Ireland

21 Nov 2023

Author Response

19^th Oct 2023,

Re: Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers.
Authors: O’Sullivan D1, Bearne ... Continue reading 19^th Oct 2023,

Re: Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers.
Authors: O’Sullivan D1, Bearne LM.2, Harrington JM.3, McVeigh JG1

Dear Prof Cramp,
Many thanks for reviewing my protocol and for your helpful comments and advice. Please see below a point by point response to your comments. The relevant text changes are highlighted in the main study protocol.

Kind regards
Declan O’Sullivan

Response to reviewer

1. First line of the abstract Methods - change 'Six-eight...' to 'Six to eight...' and 'link worker and community-based service' to 'link worker or community-based service'..'
Response: Thank you; I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 25)

2. Sentence two, change to 'Eight to 12 health care providers and GPs will be interviewed individually online
Response: Thank you; I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 26)

3. Background and rationale
First sentence: '...and increases with age (3)' should read 'and increase with age (3)'.
Response: Thank you I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 47)

4. 'Management of LTCs are challenging’ should be 'Management of LTCs is challenging'.
Response: Thank you I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 49)

5. Overall, the background sets the scene for the study by identifying the limited evidence base and wide range of models of social prescribing. It would be useful to include a definition of self-management towards the beginning of the background.
Response: Thank you I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 52-55)

6. Design: From paragraph one it is not entirely clear how many focus groups are planned as initially it is stated that there will be three focus groups and subsequently there is a statement that focus groups will be continued until sufficient information power has been reached. This needs further clarification. A sentence also needs to be added to justify the difference data collection methods for each stakeholder group.
Response: Thank you for your point. I have amended the text and added some clarification, hopefully it is much clearer for the reader (line 84-102).

7. The abstract states that the focus groups will be 60 minutes but the main text indicates 60-90 minutes, this needs to be consistent.
Response: Thank you. I can see that now. I have changed the text accordingly (line 25)

8. Sample: It is not clear how the proposed overall sample of thirty has been reached. How do you know that information power will be achieved with this number?
Response: Thank you for your point. I am aware of the difficulties in identifying the correct sample size to validate our findings. I am aware of what factors might influence the arrival at an optimal sample size and the necessity to extract all thematic codes before deciding if more participants are required to reach information power. I think I have addressed your concerns in lines 105-120

9. The sentence relating to numbers per focus group should appear under the sample rather that in the recruitment section: 'We aim to have 6–8 participants per focus group and eight-12 semi-structured interviews.'
Response: Thank you. I have amended this in text (line 106)

10. The background indicated that the middle to low socioeconomic groups were those with greatest support needs. How will you ensure that there is adequate representation from this population within your sample?
Response: Thank you for your comment. I have highlighted in text that I will use purposive sampling to recruit suitable participants from existing SP services and GP clinics and health resource centres from middle to low socioeconomic areas within the South-Southwest hospital group regions (line 154-156). I have also highlighted this in the inclusion criteria (Line 124).

11. It needs to be made clear that the 'exclusion criteria' are specific to the patient population.
Response: Thank you for your point. I have included this information in text now (line 138).

12. Focus group procedure - Reword the following sentence: 'The participants will be forwarded a M-Teams31 meeting link by email for the date and time of the focus group one month prior to the focus group discussion by email and an email reminder one week prior to it.' Suggestion: 'The participants will be sent an email with a M-Teams31 meeting link one month prior to the focus group and a reminder one week in advance clearly indicating the date and time for the discussion.'
Response: I can see this does require some grammar changes and thank you for your suggestion. I have changed this within the text (line 193-195)

13. Will the moderator be present during the focus groups?
Response: Yes the moderator will be present (line 197).

14. How will you decide whether to conduct the focus group via Microsoft Teams or in person?
Response: The recruitment sample, availability of the participants to travel to a suitable venue and finally a COVID resurgence with governmental restrictions will decide whether the focus groups will be held in person or via M-Teams.

15. The paper could be enhanced with consideration of the researcher’s perspective and how the data that is collected will subsequently be used.
Response: Thank you again for your advice. I feel I have addressed this point sufficiently in response to reviewer 1 comments. I have reworded the abstract (line 35 to 37) and background (Lines 71-73) to convey how the data from this study will influence a later study examining the effectiveness of a tailored SP model to MSK long-term conditions
19^th Oct 2023,

Re: Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers.
Authors: O’Sullivan D1, Bearne LM.2, Harrington JM.3, McVeigh JG1

Dear Prof Cramp,
Many thanks for reviewing my protocol and for your helpful comments and advice. Please see below a point by point response to your comments. The relevant text changes are highlighted in the main study protocol.

Kind regards
Declan O’Sullivan

Response to reviewer

1. First line of the abstract Methods - change 'Six-eight...' to 'Six to eight...' and 'link worker and community-based service' to 'link worker or community-based service'..'
Response: Thank you; I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 25)

2. Sentence two, change to 'Eight to 12 health care providers and GPs will be interviewed individually online
Response: Thank you; I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 26)

3. Background and rationale
First sentence: '...and increases with age (3)' should read 'and increase with age (3)'.
Response: Thank you I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 47)

4. 'Management of LTCs are challenging’ should be 'Management of LTCs is challenging'.
Response: Thank you I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 49)

5. Overall, the background sets the scene for the study by identifying the limited evidence base and wide range of models of social prescribing. It would be useful to include a definition of self-management towards the beginning of the background.
Response: Thank you I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 52-55)

6. Design: From paragraph one it is not entirely clear how many focus groups are planned as initially it is stated that there will be three focus groups and subsequently there is a statement that focus groups will be continued until sufficient information power has been reached. This needs further clarification. A sentence also needs to be added to justify the difference data collection methods for each stakeholder group.
Response: Thank you for your point. I have amended the text and added some clarification, hopefully it is much clearer for the reader (line 84-102).

7. The abstract states that the focus groups will be 60 minutes but the main text indicates 60-90 minutes, this needs to be consistent.
Response: Thank you. I can see that now. I have changed the text accordingly (line 25)

8. Sample: It is not clear how the proposed overall sample of thirty has been reached. How do you know that information power will be achieved with this number?
Response: Thank you for your point. I am aware of the difficulties in identifying the correct sample size to validate our findings. I am aware of what factors might influence the arrival at an optimal sample size and the necessity to extract all thematic codes before deciding if more participants are required to reach information power. I think I have addressed your concerns in lines 105-120

9. The sentence relating to numbers per focus group should appear under the sample rather that in the recruitment section: 'We aim to have 6–8 participants per focus group and eight-12 semi-structured interviews.'
Response: Thank you. I have amended this in text (line 106)

10. The background indicated that the middle to low socioeconomic groups were those with greatest support needs. How will you ensure that there is adequate representation from this population within your sample?
Response: Thank you for your comment. I have highlighted in text that I will use purposive sampling to recruit suitable participants from existing SP services and GP clinics and health resource centres from middle to low socioeconomic areas within the South-Southwest hospital group regions (line 154-156). I have also highlighted this in the inclusion criteria (Line 124).

11. It needs to be made clear that the 'exclusion criteria' are specific to the patient population.
Response: Thank you for your point. I have included this information in text now (line 138).

12. Focus group procedure - Reword the following sentence: 'The participants will be forwarded a M-Teams31 meeting link by email for the date and time of the focus group one month prior to the focus group discussion by email and an email reminder one week prior to it.' Suggestion: 'The participants will be sent an email with a M-Teams31 meeting link one month prior to the focus group and a reminder one week in advance clearly indicating the date and time for the discussion.'
Response: I can see this does require some grammar changes and thank you for your suggestion. I have changed this within the text (line 193-195)

13. Will the moderator be present during the focus groups?
Response: Yes the moderator will be present (line 197).

14. How will you decide whether to conduct the focus group via Microsoft Teams or in person?
Response: The recruitment sample, availability of the participants to travel to a suitable venue and finally a COVID resurgence with governmental restrictions will decide whether the focus groups will be held in person or via M-Teams.

15. The paper could be enhanced with consideration of the researcher’s perspective and how the data that is collected will subsequently be used.
Response: Thank you again for your advice. I feel I have addressed this point sufficiently in response to reviewer 1 comments. I have reworded the abstract (line 35 to 37) and background (Lines 71-73) to convey how the data from this study will influence a later study examining the effectiveness of a tailored SP model to MSK long-term conditions
Competing Interests: I do not have any conflict of interest declarations Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 15 Sep 2023

Candice Oster, Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15054.r36018

This article is a protocol for a qualitative study exploring the experiences and perceptions of social prescribing of people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers. Participants will be those receiving or delivering social prescribing interventions (social prescribing participants, health care providers, General Practitioners (GPs), and community-based services). Data will be collected via semi-structured focus groups (with social prescribing participants with long-term conditions, link workers, and community-based services) and one-to-one interviews (with health care providers and GPs). Data will be analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Study conclusions will inform the development of a pilot social prescribing service for people with long-term conditions.

The rational for the study is described. In particular, the authors discuss heterogeneity in social prescribing models and lack of clarity around what factors influence the success of models of social prescribing. Some further discussion is warranted here to link the rationale to the use of outcomes to inform development of a pilot program, as stated in the abstract. It is not clear why there is a need for a pilot program given that people with long-term conditions are already being provided social prescribing (i.e., you are recruiting people with long-term conditions who have received social prescribing). Some contextual information on existing programs and their inclusion of people with long-term conditions, and potentially the need to tailor social prescribing to particular population groups (if that is the rationale for the study), would be useful.

The study aim is quite broad in focusing on experiences and perceptions of social prescribing. Are you looking to explore specific elements that relate to the utility/effectiveness of social prescribing for people with long-term conditions (e.g., barriers and enablers)? It might be worth including some objectives that relate to the study population and the ultimate goal of outcomes being used to inform the development of the new service.

Methods: It would be good to clarify early on in the methods section that there will be one focus group conducted for each of the three types of participants with 6-8 participants in each focus group. In addition, some clarity around how you will determine when sufficient information power is reached would be useful, particularly given the plan to conduct one focus group per participant group (i.e., how is information power determined and whether further focus groups will be conducted if this threshold isn’t reached with the planned number of focus groups).

Under Recruitment, could the ‘Groups’ be more clearly delineated in terms of which will take part in focus groups versus interview? E.g., ‘Group one (focus group)’, Group two (interviews)’ etc? Otherwise, it reads as though there are four focus groups. It is also stated that ‘Participants for group two focus group will be recruited …’ – aren’t these participants to be interviewed individually?
Interview procedure: Will the interviews cover the same broad domains that were stated for focus groups?

Data collection and analysis: There is some repetition here with the previous section, e.g., around audio recording (which is mentioned under interview procedure) and the use of a semi-structured interview guide. Who will undertake the thematic analysis? How will member checking be undertaken and what is the rational for this? Also, the use of the analysis to inform development of a pilot social prescribing service should be stated in the main text of the article in addition to in the abstract.

Definition of end of study: Is it necessary to mention the end of the focus groups here?

Expenses: Will interview participants be remunerated?

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Social prescribing, qualitative research, chronic condition management.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 17 Nov 2023

Declan J. O Sullivan, Discipline of Physiotherapy, School of Clinical Therapies, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, T12X7OA, Ireland

17 Nov 2023

Author Response

18^th Sept 2023,

Re: Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers.
Authors: O’Sullivan D1, Bearne ... Continue reading 18^th Sept 2023,

Re: Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers.
Authors: O’Sullivan D1, Bearne LM.2, Harrington JM.3, McVeigh JG1

Dear Dr Oster,
Many thanks for reviewing my protocol. Thank you for your comments and advice. I have extracted comments from your report that require actions. I will address each of these below. The relevant text changes are highlighted in the main study protocol.

Kind regards
Declan O Sullivan

Response to reviewer

1. The rationale for the study is described. In particular, the authors discuss heterogeneity in social prescribing models and lack of clarity around what factors influence the success of models of social prescribing. Some further discussion is warranted here to link the rationale to the use of outcomes to inform the development of a pilot program, as stated in the abstract.
Response: Thank you for your comments. I agree this needs clarification.
Action: I have amended the final sentence in the background and rationale paragraph to address this ambiguity (line 69)

2. It is not clear why there is a need for a pilot program given that people with long-term conditions are already being provided social prescribing (i.e., you are recruiting people with long-term conditions who have received social prescribing).
Response: My Ph.D. is exploring the effectiveness of Social Prescribing in the management of long-term musculoskeletal conditions specifically. This FG may inform the optimal SP methodology for individuals with these conditions.
Action: I have reworded the abstract conclusion to reflect this. (Line 34)

3. Some contextual information on existing programs and their inclusion of people with long-term conditions, and potentially the need to tailor social prescribing to particular population groups (if that is the rationale for the study), would be useful.
Response: I have revised the text and I agree that this needs stronger emphasis.
Action: I have replaced ‘specific’ to ‘tailored’ and I have made the point that evidence surrounding the use of these SP models is mixed. I have also highlighted that the next study will be examining the effectiveness of each model in long-term musculoskeletal conditions. (line 63)

4. The study aim is quite broad in focusing on experiences and perceptions of social prescribing. Are you looking to explore specific elements that relate to the utility/effectiveness of social prescribing for people with long-term conditions (e.g., barriers and enablers)? It might be worth including some objectives that relate to the study population and the ultimate goal of outcomes being used to inform the development of the new service.
Response: Thank you for your comment. I have looked at my aim and I have elaborated more on it to give the reader a full sense of what I am trying to achieve with this study.
Action: I have changed the wording of the “Aims and Objectives” paragraph to reflect this. (line 74)

4. Methods: It would be good to clarify early on in the methods section that there will be one focus group conducted for each of the three types of participants with 6-8 participants in each focus group.
Response: I can see the potential for confusion with this and I have amended it to reflect your advice
Action: I have added a sentence to the paragraph under “Design” to add clarity to the design process. (line 84)

5. In addition, some clarity around how you will determine when sufficient information power is reached would be useful, particularly given the plan to conduct one focus group per participant group (i.e., how is information power determined and whether further focus groups will be conducted if this threshold isn’t reached with the planned number of focus groups).
Response: Thank you for your advice. I have highlighted this point more in the design.
Action: I have reworded the sentence relating to information power to highlight the point that more focus groups will be conducted until sufficient information power has been reached. (line 91)

6. Under Recruitment, could the ‘Groups’ be more clearly delineated in terms of which will take part in focus groups versus interviews? E.g., ‘Group one (focus group)’, Group two (interviews)’ etc? Otherwise, it reads as though there are four focus groups.
Response: Thank you for highlighting this. For this study, I will conduct four focus groups (Gp 1 Patients, Gp 2 Referrers, Gp3 Link workers, Gp4 Community based services, and Interview Gp General practitioners)
Action: I have added more information to the paragraph under “recruitment” to reflect this need for clarity. I have added labels to the groupings of participants. (lines 135-149)

7. It is also stated that ‘Participants for group two focus group will be recruited …’ – aren’t these participants to be interviewed individually?
Response: Focus group 2 will not be interviewed individually. Focus group 2 will contain health care practitioners including physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and social workers. They will be recruited through direct email to gatekeepers and through social media.
Action: In actioning your previous point I hope this will be more clear to the reader now. I have also re-structured the paragraph slightly to bring make this more concise. (line 159-164)

8. Interview procedure: Will the interviews cover the same broad domains that were stated for focus groups?
Response: Thank you for your question. Yes, the interviews will contain the same broad domains as stated for the focus group. This is highlighted in the paragraph under “interview Procedure”
Action: none is required at this time.

9. Data collection and analysis: There is some repetition here with the previous section, e.g., around audio recording (which is mentioned under interview procedure) and the use of a semi-structured interview guide.
Response: Thank you for highlighting the repetition.
Action: I have deleted any further reference to audio recording processes and interview schedules within the “Data Collection and Analysis” paragraph. (line 206-227)

10. Who will undertake the thematic analysis?
Response: Thank you, this was not clear within the text.
Action: I have added my initials to this sentence to inform the reader who was responsible for this task. (line 218)

11. How will member checking be undertaken and what is the rationale for this?
Response: Thank you for highlighting this. Member checking is an important quality appraisal tool that may be utilized but not necessary depending on the outcome of the dataset analysis.
Action: Under the “Data collection and Analysis” paragraph, I have rewritten this sentence to capture the rationale and procedure for member checking in the event it will be necessary. (line 224)

12. The use of the analysis to inform the development of a pilot social prescribing service should be stated in the main text of the article in addition to in the abstract.
Response: Thank you very much for this advice. I agree this should have been highlighted more.
Action: I have taken this on board and made appropriate changes to the abstract and in-text in the final line of the “background and rationale” paragraph. (Line 34, Line 69)

13. Definition of end of study: Is it necessary to mention the end of the focus groups here?
Response: As a novice researcher, I was following previous studies' headings.
Action: I have deleted this paragraph from the text.

14. Expenses: Will interview participants be remunerated?
Response: Thank you for your comment. No, interview participants will not be reimbursed. Interviews will be conducted online and at a time convenient to them.
Action: This was clarified in the text. (Line 259-261)
15. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Partly
Response: I hope with the advice and recommendations from the reviewer that the rationale and objectives are more clearly defined.

16. Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
Response: I have made the necessary changes to the text as proposed by the reviewer. I hope this will address any ambiguity to the reader.
18^th Sept 2023,

Re: Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers.
Authors: O’Sullivan D1, Bearne LM.2, Harrington JM.3, McVeigh JG1

Dear Dr Oster,
Many thanks for reviewing my protocol. Thank you for your comments and advice. I have extracted comments from your report that require actions. I will address each of these below. The relevant text changes are highlighted in the main study protocol.

Kind regards
Declan O Sullivan

Response to reviewer

1. The rationale for the study is described. In particular, the authors discuss heterogeneity in social prescribing models and lack of clarity around what factors influence the success of models of social prescribing. Some further discussion is warranted here to link the rationale to the use of outcomes to inform the development of a pilot program, as stated in the abstract.
Response: Thank you for your comments. I agree this needs clarification.
Action: I have amended the final sentence in the background and rationale paragraph to address this ambiguity (line 69)

2. It is not clear why there is a need for a pilot program given that people with long-term conditions are already being provided social prescribing (i.e., you are recruiting people with long-term conditions who have received social prescribing).
Response: My Ph.D. is exploring the effectiveness of Social Prescribing in the management of long-term musculoskeletal conditions specifically. This FG may inform the optimal SP methodology for individuals with these conditions.
Action: I have reworded the abstract conclusion to reflect this. (Line 34)

3. Some contextual information on existing programs and their inclusion of people with long-term conditions, and potentially the need to tailor social prescribing to particular population groups (if that is the rationale for the study), would be useful.
Response: I have revised the text and I agree that this needs stronger emphasis.
Action: I have replaced ‘specific’ to ‘tailored’ and I have made the point that evidence surrounding the use of these SP models is mixed. I have also highlighted that the next study will be examining the effectiveness of each model in long-term musculoskeletal conditions. (line 63)

4. The study aim is quite broad in focusing on experiences and perceptions of social prescribing. Are you looking to explore specific elements that relate to the utility/effectiveness of social prescribing for people with long-term conditions (e.g., barriers and enablers)? It might be worth including some objectives that relate to the study population and the ultimate goal of outcomes being used to inform the development of the new service.
Response: Thank you for your comment. I have looked at my aim and I have elaborated more on it to give the reader a full sense of what I am trying to achieve with this study.
Action: I have changed the wording of the “Aims and Objectives” paragraph to reflect this. (line 74)

4. Methods: It would be good to clarify early on in the methods section that there will be one focus group conducted for each of the three types of participants with 6-8 participants in each focus group.
Response: I can see the potential for confusion with this and I have amended it to reflect your advice
Action: I have added a sentence to the paragraph under “Design” to add clarity to the design process. (line 84)

5. In addition, some clarity around how you will determine when sufficient information power is reached would be useful, particularly given the plan to conduct one focus group per participant group (i.e., how is information power determined and whether further focus groups will be conducted if this threshold isn’t reached with the planned number of focus groups).
Response: Thank you for your advice. I have highlighted this point more in the design.
Action: I have reworded the sentence relating to information power to highlight the point that more focus groups will be conducted until sufficient information power has been reached. (line 91)

6. Under Recruitment, could the ‘Groups’ be more clearly delineated in terms of which will take part in focus groups versus interviews? E.g., ‘Group one (focus group)’, Group two (interviews)’ etc? Otherwise, it reads as though there are four focus groups.
Response: Thank you for highlighting this. For this study, I will conduct four focus groups (Gp 1 Patients, Gp 2 Referrers, Gp3 Link workers, Gp4 Community based services, and Interview Gp General practitioners)
Action: I have added more information to the paragraph under “recruitment” to reflect this need for clarity. I have added labels to the groupings of participants. (lines 135-149)

7. It is also stated that ‘Participants for group two focus group will be recruited …’ – aren’t these participants to be interviewed individually?
Response: Focus group 2 will not be interviewed individually. Focus group 2 will contain health care practitioners including physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and social workers. They will be recruited through direct email to gatekeepers and through social media.
Action: In actioning your previous point I hope this will be more clear to the reader now. I have also re-structured the paragraph slightly to bring make this more concise. (line 159-164)

8. Interview procedure: Will the interviews cover the same broad domains that were stated for focus groups?
Response: Thank you for your question. Yes, the interviews will contain the same broad domains as stated for the focus group. This is highlighted in the paragraph under “interview Procedure”
Action: none is required at this time.

9. Data collection and analysis: There is some repetition here with the previous section, e.g., around audio recording (which is mentioned under interview procedure) and the use of a semi-structured interview guide.
Response: Thank you for highlighting the repetition.
Action: I have deleted any further reference to audio recording processes and interview schedules within the “Data Collection and Analysis” paragraph. (line 206-227)

10. Who will undertake the thematic analysis?
Response: Thank you, this was not clear within the text.
Action: I have added my initials to this sentence to inform the reader who was responsible for this task. (line 218)

11. How will member checking be undertaken and what is the rationale for this?
Response: Thank you for highlighting this. Member checking is an important quality appraisal tool that may be utilized but not necessary depending on the outcome of the dataset analysis.
Action: Under the “Data collection and Analysis” paragraph, I have rewritten this sentence to capture the rationale and procedure for member checking in the event it will be necessary. (line 224)

12. The use of the analysis to inform the development of a pilot social prescribing service should be stated in the main text of the article in addition to in the abstract.
Response: Thank you very much for this advice. I agree this should have been highlighted more.
Action: I have taken this on board and made appropriate changes to the abstract and in-text in the final line of the “background and rationale” paragraph. (Line 34, Line 69)

13. Definition of end of study: Is it necessary to mention the end of the focus groups here?
Response: As a novice researcher, I was following previous studies' headings.
Action: I have deleted this paragraph from the text.

14. Expenses: Will interview participants be remunerated?
Response: Thank you for your comment. No, interview participants will not be reimbursed. Interviews will be conducted online and at a time convenient to them.
Action: This was clarified in the text. (Line 259-261)
15. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Partly
Response: I hope with the advice and recommendations from the reviewer that the rationale and objectives are more clearly defined.

16. Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
Response: I have made the necessary changes to the text as proposed by the reviewer. I hope this will address any ambiguity to the reader.
Competing Interests: I have no competing interests Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 17 Nov 2023

Declan J. O Sullivan, Discipline of Physiotherapy, School of Clinical Therapies, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, T12X7OA, Ireland

17 Nov 2023

Author Response

18^th Sept 2023,

Re: Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers.
Authors: O’Sullivan D1, Bearne ... Continue reading 18^th Sept 2023,

Re: Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers.
Authors: O’Sullivan D1, Bearne LM.2, Harrington JM.3, McVeigh JG1

Dear Dr Oster,
Many thanks for reviewing my protocol. Thank you for your comments and advice. I have extracted comments from your report that require actions. I will address each of these below. The relevant text changes are highlighted in the main study protocol.

Kind regards
Declan O Sullivan

Response to reviewer

1. The rationale for the study is described. In particular, the authors discuss heterogeneity in social prescribing models and lack of clarity around what factors influence the success of models of social prescribing. Some further discussion is warranted here to link the rationale to the use of outcomes to inform the development of a pilot program, as stated in the abstract.
Response: Thank you for your comments. I agree this needs clarification.
Action: I have amended the final sentence in the background and rationale paragraph to address this ambiguity (line 69)

2. It is not clear why there is a need for a pilot program given that people with long-term conditions are already being provided social prescribing (i.e., you are recruiting people with long-term conditions who have received social prescribing).
Response: My Ph.D. is exploring the effectiveness of Social Prescribing in the management of long-term musculoskeletal conditions specifically. This FG may inform the optimal SP methodology for individuals with these conditions.
Action: I have reworded the abstract conclusion to reflect this. (Line 34)

3. Some contextual information on existing programs and their inclusion of people with long-term conditions, and potentially the need to tailor social prescribing to particular population groups (if that is the rationale for the study), would be useful.
Response: I have revised the text and I agree that this needs stronger emphasis.
Action: I have replaced ‘specific’ to ‘tailored’ and I have made the point that evidence surrounding the use of these SP models is mixed. I have also highlighted that the next study will be examining the effectiveness of each model in long-term musculoskeletal conditions. (line 63)

4. The study aim is quite broad in focusing on experiences and perceptions of social prescribing. Are you looking to explore specific elements that relate to the utility/effectiveness of social prescribing for people with long-term conditions (e.g., barriers and enablers)? It might be worth including some objectives that relate to the study population and the ultimate goal of outcomes being used to inform the development of the new service.
Response: Thank you for your comment. I have looked at my aim and I have elaborated more on it to give the reader a full sense of what I am trying to achieve with this study.
Action: I have changed the wording of the “Aims and Objectives” paragraph to reflect this. (line 74)

4. Methods: It would be good to clarify early on in the methods section that there will be one focus group conducted for each of the three types of participants with 6-8 participants in each focus group.
Response: I can see the potential for confusion with this and I have amended it to reflect your advice
Action: I have added a sentence to the paragraph under “Design” to add clarity to the design process. (line 84)

5. In addition, some clarity around how you will determine when sufficient information power is reached would be useful, particularly given the plan to conduct one focus group per participant group (i.e., how is information power determined and whether further focus groups will be conducted if this threshold isn’t reached with the planned number of focus groups).
Response: Thank you for your advice. I have highlighted this point more in the design.
Action: I have reworded the sentence relating to information power to highlight the point that more focus groups will be conducted until sufficient information power has been reached. (line 91)

6. Under Recruitment, could the ‘Groups’ be more clearly delineated in terms of which will take part in focus groups versus interviews? E.g., ‘Group one (focus group)’, Group two (interviews)’ etc? Otherwise, it reads as though there are four focus groups.
Response: Thank you for highlighting this. For this study, I will conduct four focus groups (Gp 1 Patients, Gp 2 Referrers, Gp3 Link workers, Gp4 Community based services, and Interview Gp General practitioners)
Action: I have added more information to the paragraph under “recruitment” to reflect this need for clarity. I have added labels to the groupings of participants. (lines 135-149)

7. It is also stated that ‘Participants for group two focus group will be recruited …’ – aren’t these participants to be interviewed individually?
Response: Focus group 2 will not be interviewed individually. Focus group 2 will contain health care practitioners including physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and social workers. They will be recruited through direct email to gatekeepers and through social media.
Action: In actioning your previous point I hope this will be more clear to the reader now. I have also re-structured the paragraph slightly to bring make this more concise. (line 159-164)

8. Interview procedure: Will the interviews cover the same broad domains that were stated for focus groups?
Response: Thank you for your question. Yes, the interviews will contain the same broad domains as stated for the focus group. This is highlighted in the paragraph under “interview Procedure”
Action: none is required at this time.

9. Data collection and analysis: There is some repetition here with the previous section, e.g., around audio recording (which is mentioned under interview procedure) and the use of a semi-structured interview guide.
Response: Thank you for highlighting the repetition.
Action: I have deleted any further reference to audio recording processes and interview schedules within the “Data Collection and Analysis” paragraph. (line 206-227)

10. Who will undertake the thematic analysis?
Response: Thank you, this was not clear within the text.
Action: I have added my initials to this sentence to inform the reader who was responsible for this task. (line 218)

11. How will member checking be undertaken and what is the rationale for this?
Response: Thank you for highlighting this. Member checking is an important quality appraisal tool that may be utilized but not necessary depending on the outcome of the dataset analysis.
Action: Under the “Data collection and Analysis” paragraph, I have rewritten this sentence to capture the rationale and procedure for member checking in the event it will be necessary. (line 224)

12. The use of the analysis to inform the development of a pilot social prescribing service should be stated in the main text of the article in addition to in the abstract.
Response: Thank you very much for this advice. I agree this should have been highlighted more.
Action: I have taken this on board and made appropriate changes to the abstract and in-text in the final line of the “background and rationale” paragraph. (Line 34, Line 69)

13. Definition of end of study: Is it necessary to mention the end of the focus groups here?
Response: As a novice researcher, I was following previous studies' headings.
Action: I have deleted this paragraph from the text.

14. Expenses: Will interview participants be remunerated?
Response: Thank you for your comment. No, interview participants will not be reimbursed. Interviews will be conducted online and at a time convenient to them.
Action: This was clarified in the text. (Line 259-261)
15. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Partly
Response: I hope with the advice and recommendations from the reviewer that the rationale and objectives are more clearly defined.

16. Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
Response: I have made the necessary changes to the text as proposed by the reviewer. I hope this will address any ambiguity to the reader.
18^th Sept 2023,

Re: Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers.
Authors: O’Sullivan D1, Bearne LM.2, Harrington JM.3, McVeigh JG1

Dear Dr Oster,
Many thanks for reviewing my protocol. Thank you for your comments and advice. I have extracted comments from your report that require actions. I will address each of these below. The relevant text changes are highlighted in the main study protocol.

Kind regards
Declan O Sullivan

Response to reviewer

1. The rationale for the study is described. In particular, the authors discuss heterogeneity in social prescribing models and lack of clarity around what factors influence the success of models of social prescribing. Some further discussion is warranted here to link the rationale to the use of outcomes to inform the development of a pilot program, as stated in the abstract.
Response: Thank you for your comments. I agree this needs clarification.
Action: I have amended the final sentence in the background and rationale paragraph to address this ambiguity (line 69)

2. It is not clear why there is a need for a pilot program given that people with long-term conditions are already being provided social prescribing (i.e., you are recruiting people with long-term conditions who have received social prescribing).
Response: My Ph.D. is exploring the effectiveness of Social Prescribing in the management of long-term musculoskeletal conditions specifically. This FG may inform the optimal SP methodology for individuals with these conditions.
Action: I have reworded the abstract conclusion to reflect this. (Line 34)

3. Some contextual information on existing programs and their inclusion of people with long-term conditions, and potentially the need to tailor social prescribing to particular population groups (if that is the rationale for the study), would be useful.
Response: I have revised the text and I agree that this needs stronger emphasis.
Action: I have replaced ‘specific’ to ‘tailored’ and I have made the point that evidence surrounding the use of these SP models is mixed. I have also highlighted that the next study will be examining the effectiveness of each model in long-term musculoskeletal conditions. (line 63)

4. The study aim is quite broad in focusing on experiences and perceptions of social prescribing. Are you looking to explore specific elements that relate to the utility/effectiveness of social prescribing for people with long-term conditions (e.g., barriers and enablers)? It might be worth including some objectives that relate to the study population and the ultimate goal of outcomes being used to inform the development of the new service.
Response: Thank you for your comment. I have looked at my aim and I have elaborated more on it to give the reader a full sense of what I am trying to achieve with this study.
Action: I have changed the wording of the “Aims and Objectives” paragraph to reflect this. (line 74)

4. Methods: It would be good to clarify early on in the methods section that there will be one focus group conducted for each of the three types of participants with 6-8 participants in each focus group.
Response: I can see the potential for confusion with this and I have amended it to reflect your advice
Action: I have added a sentence to the paragraph under “Design” to add clarity to the design process. (line 84)

5. In addition, some clarity around how you will determine when sufficient information power is reached would be useful, particularly given the plan to conduct one focus group per participant group (i.e., how is information power determined and whether further focus groups will be conducted if this threshold isn’t reached with the planned number of focus groups).
Response: Thank you for your advice. I have highlighted this point more in the design.
Action: I have reworded the sentence relating to information power to highlight the point that more focus groups will be conducted until sufficient information power has been reached. (line 91)

6. Under Recruitment, could the ‘Groups’ be more clearly delineated in terms of which will take part in focus groups versus interviews? E.g., ‘Group one (focus group)’, Group two (interviews)’ etc? Otherwise, it reads as though there are four focus groups.
Response: Thank you for highlighting this. For this study, I will conduct four focus groups (Gp 1 Patients, Gp 2 Referrers, Gp3 Link workers, Gp4 Community based services, and Interview Gp General practitioners)
Action: I have added more information to the paragraph under “recruitment” to reflect this need for clarity. I have added labels to the groupings of participants. (lines 135-149)

7. It is also stated that ‘Participants for group two focus group will be recruited …’ – aren’t these participants to be interviewed individually?
Response: Focus group 2 will not be interviewed individually. Focus group 2 will contain health care practitioners including physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and social workers. They will be recruited through direct email to gatekeepers and through social media.
Action: In actioning your previous point I hope this will be more clear to the reader now. I have also re-structured the paragraph slightly to bring make this more concise. (line 159-164)

8. Interview procedure: Will the interviews cover the same broad domains that were stated for focus groups?
Response: Thank you for your question. Yes, the interviews will contain the same broad domains as stated for the focus group. This is highlighted in the paragraph under “interview Procedure”
Action: none is required at this time.

9. Data collection and analysis: There is some repetition here with the previous section, e.g., around audio recording (which is mentioned under interview procedure) and the use of a semi-structured interview guide.
Response: Thank you for highlighting the repetition.
Action: I have deleted any further reference to audio recording processes and interview schedules within the “Data Collection and Analysis” paragraph. (line 206-227)

10. Who will undertake the thematic analysis?
Response: Thank you, this was not clear within the text.
Action: I have added my initials to this sentence to inform the reader who was responsible for this task. (line 218)

11. How will member checking be undertaken and what is the rationale for this?
Response: Thank you for highlighting this. Member checking is an important quality appraisal tool that may be utilized but not necessary depending on the outcome of the dataset analysis.
Action: Under the “Data collection and Analysis” paragraph, I have rewritten this sentence to capture the rationale and procedure for member checking in the event it will be necessary. (line 224)

12. The use of the analysis to inform the development of a pilot social prescribing service should be stated in the main text of the article in addition to in the abstract.
Response: Thank you very much for this advice. I agree this should have been highlighted more.
Action: I have taken this on board and made appropriate changes to the abstract and in-text in the final line of the “background and rationale” paragraph. (Line 34, Line 69)

13. Definition of end of study: Is it necessary to mention the end of the focus groups here?
Response: As a novice researcher, I was following previous studies' headings.
Action: I have deleted this paragraph from the text.

14. Expenses: Will interview participants be remunerated?
Response: Thank you for your comment. No, interview participants will not be reimbursed. Interviews will be conducted online and at a time convenient to them.
Action: This was clarified in the text. (Line 259-261)
15. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Partly
Response: I hope with the advice and recommendations from the reviewer that the rationale and objectives are more clearly defined.

16. Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
Response: I have made the necessary changes to the text as proposed by the reviewer. I hope this will address any ambiguity to the reader.
Competing Interests: I have no competing interests Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 01 Sep 2023

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 3 (revision) 09 Jan 24		read
Version 2 (revision) 12 Oct 23	read
Version 1 01 Sep 23	read	read

Candice Oster, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
Fiona Cramp, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

30 Views

27 Jan 2024 | for Version 3

Fiona Cramp, School of Health and Social Wellbeing, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

30 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The authors have addressed all of my previous comments and I have nothing further to add.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Long term conditions, physical activity, complex interventions

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

27 Views

18 Oct 2023 | for Version 2

Candice Oster, Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia

27 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Thank you for your amendments. I have not further comments.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Social prescribing, qualitative research, chronic condition management.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

39 Views

06 Oct 2023 | for Version 1

Fiona Cramp, School of Health and Social Wellbeing, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

39 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

In the past four years I have co-published with one of the authors (McVeigh). I have no other competing interests.

Reviewer Expertise

Physiotherapy, long term conditions, complex interventions

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

21 Nov 2023

Declan J. O Sullivan, Discipline of Physiotherapy, School of Clinical Therapies, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, T12X7OA, Ireland

19^th Oct 2023,

Re: Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers.
Authors: O’Sullivan D1, Bearne LM.2, Harrington JM.3, McVeigh JG1

Dear Prof Cramp,
Many thanks for reviewing my protocol and for your helpful comments and advice. Please see below a point by point response to your comments. The relevant text changes are highlighted in the main study protocol.

Kind regards
Declan O’Sullivan

Response to reviewer

1. First line of the abstract Methods - change 'Six-eight...' to 'Six to eight...' and 'link worker and community-based service' to 'link worker or community-based service'..'
Response: Thank you; I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 25)

2. Sentence two, change to 'Eight to 12 health care providers and GPs will be interviewed individually online
Response: Thank you; I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 26)

3. Background and rationale
First sentence: '...and increases with age (3)' should read 'and increase with age (3)'.
Response: Thank you I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 47)

4. 'Management of LTCs are challenging’ should be 'Management of LTCs is challenging'.
Response: Thank you I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 49)

5. Overall, the background sets the scene for the study by identifying the limited evidence base and wide range of models of social prescribing. It would be useful to include a definition of self-management towards the beginning of the background.
Response: Thank you I have changed this to reflect your recommendations (Line 52-55)

6. Design: From paragraph one it is not entirely clear how many focus groups are planned as initially it is stated that there will be three focus groups and subsequently there is a statement that focus groups will be continued until sufficient information power has been reached. This needs further clarification. A sentence also needs to be added to justify the difference data collection methods for each stakeholder group.
Response: Thank you for your point. I have amended the text and added some clarification, hopefully it is much clearer for the reader (line 84-102).

7. The abstract states that the focus groups will be 60 minutes but the main text indicates 60-90 minutes, this needs to be consistent.
Response: Thank you. I can see that now. I have changed the text accordingly (line 25)

8. Sample: It is not clear how the proposed overall sample of thirty has been reached. How do you know that information power will be achieved with this number?
Response: Thank you for your point. I am aware of the difficulties in identifying the correct sample size to validate our findings. I am aware of what factors might influence the arrival at an optimal sample size and the necessity to extract all thematic codes before deciding if more participants are required to reach information power. I think I have addressed your concerns in lines 105-120

9. The sentence relating to numbers per focus group should appear under the sample rather that in the recruitment section: 'We aim to have 6–8 participants per focus group and eight-12 semi-structured interviews.'
Response: Thank you. I have amended this in text (line 106)

10. The background indicated that the middle to low socioeconomic groups were those with greatest support needs. How will you ensure that there is adequate representation from this population within your sample?
Response: Thank you for your comment. I have highlighted in text that I will use purposive sampling to recruit suitable participants from existing SP services and GP clinics and health resource centres from middle to low socioeconomic areas within the South-Southwest hospital group regions (line 154-156). I have also highlighted this in the inclusion criteria (Line 124).

11. It needs to be made clear that the 'exclusion criteria' are specific to the patient population.
Response: Thank you for your point. I have included this information in text now (line 138).

12. Focus group procedure - Reword the following sentence: 'The participants will be forwarded a M-Teams31 meeting link by email for the date and time of the focus group one month prior to the focus group discussion by email and an email reminder one week prior to it.' Suggestion: 'The participants will be sent an email with a M-Teams31 meeting link one month prior to the focus group and a reminder one week in advance clearly indicating the date and time for the discussion.'
Response: I can see this does require some grammar changes and thank you for your suggestion. I have changed this within the text (line 193-195)

13. Will the moderator be present during the focus groups?
Response: Yes the moderator will be present (line 197).

14. How will you decide whether to conduct the focus group via Microsoft Teams or in person?
Response: The recruitment sample, availability of the participants to travel to a suitable venue and finally a COVID resurgence with governmental restrictions will decide whether the focus groups will be held in person or via M-Teams.

15. The paper could be enhanced with consideration of the researcher’s perspective and how the data that is collected will subsequently be used.
Response: Thank you again for your advice. I feel I have addressed this point sufficiently in response to reviewer 1 comments. I have reworded the abstract (line 35 to 37) and background (Lines 71-73) to convey how the data from this study will influence a later study examining the effectiveness of a tailored SP model to MSK long-term conditions

View more View less

Competing Interests

I do not have any conflict of interest declarations

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

39 Views

15 Sep 2023 | for Version 1

Candice Oster, Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia

39 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Social prescribing, qualitative research, chronic condition management.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

17 Nov 2023

Declan J. O Sullivan, Discipline of Physiotherapy, School of Clinical Therapies, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, T12X7OA, Ireland

18^th Sept 2023,

Re: Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers.
Authors: O’Sullivan D1, Bearne LM.2, Harrington JM.3, McVeigh JG1

Dear Dr Oster,
Many thanks for reviewing my protocol. Thank you for your comments and advice. I have extracted comments from your report that require actions. I will address each of these below. The relevant text changes are highlighted in the main study protocol.

Kind regards
Declan O Sullivan

Response to reviewer

1. The rationale for the study is described. In particular, the authors discuss heterogeneity in social prescribing models and lack of clarity around what factors influence the success of models of social prescribing. Some further discussion is warranted here to link the rationale to the use of outcomes to inform the development of a pilot program, as stated in the abstract.
Response: Thank you for your comments. I agree this needs clarification.
Action: I have amended the final sentence in the background and rationale paragraph to address this ambiguity (line 69)

2. It is not clear why there is a need for a pilot program given that people with long-term conditions are already being provided social prescribing (i.e., you are recruiting people with long-term conditions who have received social prescribing).
Response: My Ph.D. is exploring the effectiveness of Social Prescribing in the management of long-term musculoskeletal conditions specifically. This FG may inform the optimal SP methodology for individuals with these conditions.
Action: I have reworded the abstract conclusion to reflect this. (Line 34)

3. Some contextual information on existing programs and their inclusion of people with long-term conditions, and potentially the need to tailor social prescribing to particular population groups (if that is the rationale for the study), would be useful.
Response: I have revised the text and I agree that this needs stronger emphasis.
Action: I have replaced ‘specific’ to ‘tailored’ and I have made the point that evidence surrounding the use of these SP models is mixed. I have also highlighted that the next study will be examining the effectiveness of each model in long-term musculoskeletal conditions. (line 63)

4. The study aim is quite broad in focusing on experiences and perceptions of social prescribing. Are you looking to explore specific elements that relate to the utility/effectiveness of social prescribing for people with long-term conditions (e.g., barriers and enablers)? It might be worth including some objectives that relate to the study population and the ultimate goal of outcomes being used to inform the development of the new service.
Response: Thank you for your comment. I have looked at my aim and I have elaborated more on it to give the reader a full sense of what I am trying to achieve with this study.
Action: I have changed the wording of the “Aims and Objectives” paragraph to reflect this. (line 74)

4. Methods: It would be good to clarify early on in the methods section that there will be one focus group conducted for each of the three types of participants with 6-8 participants in each focus group.
Response: I can see the potential for confusion with this and I have amended it to reflect your advice
Action: I have added a sentence to the paragraph under “Design” to add clarity to the design process. (line 84)

5. In addition, some clarity around how you will determine when sufficient information power is reached would be useful, particularly given the plan to conduct one focus group per participant group (i.e., how is information power determined and whether further focus groups will be conducted if this threshold isn’t reached with the planned number of focus groups).
Response: Thank you for your advice. I have highlighted this point more in the design.
Action: I have reworded the sentence relating to information power to highlight the point that more focus groups will be conducted until sufficient information power has been reached. (line 91)

6. Under Recruitment, could the ‘Groups’ be more clearly delineated in terms of which will take part in focus groups versus interviews? E.g., ‘Group one (focus group)’, Group two (interviews)’ etc? Otherwise, it reads as though there are four focus groups.
Response: Thank you for highlighting this. For this study, I will conduct four focus groups (Gp 1 Patients, Gp 2 Referrers, Gp3 Link workers, Gp4 Community based services, and Interview Gp General practitioners)
Action: I have added more information to the paragraph under “recruitment” to reflect this need for clarity. I have added labels to the groupings of participants. (lines 135-149)

7. It is also stated that ‘Participants for group two focus group will be recruited …’ – aren’t these participants to be interviewed individually?
Response: Focus group 2 will not be interviewed individually. Focus group 2 will contain health care practitioners including physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and social workers. They will be recruited through direct email to gatekeepers and through social media.
Action: In actioning your previous point I hope this will be more clear to the reader now. I have also re-structured the paragraph slightly to bring make this more concise. (line 159-164)

8. Interview procedure: Will the interviews cover the same broad domains that were stated for focus groups?
Response: Thank you for your question. Yes, the interviews will contain the same broad domains as stated for the focus group. This is highlighted in the paragraph under “interview Procedure”
Action: none is required at this time.

9. Data collection and analysis: There is some repetition here with the previous section, e.g., around audio recording (which is mentioned under interview procedure) and the use of a semi-structured interview guide.
Response: Thank you for highlighting the repetition.
Action: I have deleted any further reference to audio recording processes and interview schedules within the “Data Collection and Analysis” paragraph. (line 206-227)

10. Who will undertake the thematic analysis?
Response: Thank you, this was not clear within the text.
Action: I have added my initials to this sentence to inform the reader who was responsible for this task. (line 218)

11. How will member checking be undertaken and what is the rationale for this?
Response: Thank you for highlighting this. Member checking is an important quality appraisal tool that may be utilized but not necessary depending on the outcome of the dataset analysis.
Action: Under the “Data collection and Analysis” paragraph, I have rewritten this sentence to capture the rationale and procedure for member checking in the event it will be necessary. (line 224)

12. The use of the analysis to inform the development of a pilot social prescribing service should be stated in the main text of the article in addition to in the abstract.
Response: Thank you very much for this advice. I agree this should have been highlighted more.
Action: I have taken this on board and made appropriate changes to the abstract and in-text in the final line of the “background and rationale” paragraph. (Line 34, Line 69)

13. Definition of end of study: Is it necessary to mention the end of the focus groups here?
Response: As a novice researcher, I was following previous studies' headings.
Action: I have deleted this paragraph from the text.

14. Expenses: Will interview participants be remunerated?
Response: Thank you for your comment. No, interview participants will not be reimbursed. Interviews will be conducted online and at a time convenient to them.
Action: This was clarified in the text. (Line 259-261)
15. Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Partly
Response: I hope with the advice and recommendations from the reviewer that the rationale and objectives are more clearly defined.

16. Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
Response: I have made the necessary changes to the text as proposed by the reviewer. I hope this will address any ambiguity to the reader.

View more View less

Competing Interests

I have no competing interests

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Dhere A: Managing complex long-term conditions and multimorbidity. Clin Med (Lond). 2016; 16(6): 545–547. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[2] 2. Thrall JH: Prevalence and costs of chronic disease in a health care system structured for treatment of acute illness. Radiology. 2005; 235(1): 9–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Blyth FM, Noguchi N: Chronic musculoskeletal pain and its impact on older people. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2017; 31(2): 160–168. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Picco L, Achilla E, Abdin E, et al.: Economic burden of multimorbidity among older adults: impact on healthcare and societal costs. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016; 16: 173. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[5] 5. Farre A, Rapley T: The New Old (and Old New) Medical Model: Four Decades Navigating the Biomedical and Psychosocial Understandings of Health and Illness. Healthcare (Basel). 2017; 5(4): 88. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[6] 6. Kuipers SJ, Cramm JM, Nieboer AP: The importance of patient-centered care and co-creation of care for satisfaction with care and physical and social well-being of patients with multi-morbidity in the primary care setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019; 19(1): 13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[7] 7. Briggs AM, Cross MJ, Hoy DG, et al.: Musculoskeletal Health Conditions Represent a Global Threat to Healthy Aging: A Report for the 2015 World Health Organization World Report on Ageing and Health. Gerontologist. 2016; 56 Suppl 2: S243–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Briggs AM, Woolf AD, Dreinhöfer K, et al.: Reducing the global burden of musculoskeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ. 2018; 96(5): 366–368. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[9] 9. Cimmino MA, Ferrone C, Cutolo M: Epidemiology of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2011; 25(2): 173–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Reynolds R, Dennis S, Hasan I, et al.: A systematic review of chronic disease management interventions in primary care. BMC Fam Pract. 2018; 19(1): 11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[11] 11. Musekamp G, Gerlich C, Ehlebracht-König I, et al.: Evaluation of a self-management patient education program for patients with fibromyalgia syndrome: study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016; 17(1): 55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[12] 12. Oliveira VC, Ferreira PH, Maher CG, et al.: Effectiveness of self-management of low back pain: systematic review with meta-analysis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012; 64(11): 1739–48. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Mackey LM, Doody C, Werner EL, et al.: Self-Management Skills in Chronic Disease Management: What Role Does Health Literacy Have? Med Decis Making. 2016; 36(6): 741–59. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Chatterjee HJ, Camic PM, Lockyer B, et al.: Non-clinical community interventions: a systematised review of social prescribing schemes. Arts & Health. 2018; 10(2): 97–123. Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Buck D, Ewbank L: What is social prescribing. Kings Fund, 2020. Reference Source

[16] 16. Morse DF, Sandhu S, Mulligan K, et al.: Global developments in social prescribing. BMJ Glob Health. 2022; 7(5): e008524. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[17] 17. Pescheny JV, Gunn LH, Pappas Y, et al.: The impact of the Luton social prescribing programme on mental well-being: a quantitative before-and-after study. J Public Health (Oxf). 2021; 43(1): e69–e76. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Polley M, Chatterjee H, Clayton G: Social prescribing: community-based referral in public health. Perspect Public Health. 2018; 138(1): 18–19. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Hassan SM, Giebel C, Morasae EK, et al.: Social prescribing for people with mental health needs living in disadvantaged communities: the Life Rooms model. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020; 20(1): 19. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[20] 20. Kiely B, Croke A, O'Shea E, et al.: Effectiveness of link workers providing social prescribing on health outcomes and costs for adult patients in primary care and community settings. A protocol for a systematic review of the literature [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res. 2020; 2: 21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[21] 21. Husk K, Blockley K, Lovell R, Bethel A, et al.: What approaches to social prescribing work, for whom, and in what circumstances? A protocol for a realist review. Syst Rev. 2016; 5: 93. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[22] 22. Kiely B, Croke A, O'Shea M, et al.: Effect of social prescribing link workers on health outcomes and costs for adults in primary care and community settings: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2022; 12(10): e062951. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[23] 23. Pescheny JV, Randhawa G, Pappas Y: The impact of social prescribing services on service users: a systematic review of the evidence. Eur J Public Health. 2020; 30(4): 664–673. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Bickerdike L, Booth A, Wilson PM, et al.: Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(4): e013384. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[25] 25. Kitzinger J: Qualitative Research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ. 1995; 311(7000): 299–302. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[26] 26. Polley M: Social Prescribing Network Conference Report 2016 UK. 2016.

[27] 27. Doyle L, McCabe C, Keogh B, et al.: An overview of the qualitative descriptive design within nursing research. J Res Nurs. 2020; 25(5): 443–55. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[28] 28. Bradshaw C, Atkinson S, Doody O: Employing a Qualitative Description Approach in Health Care Research. Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2017; 4: 2333393617742282. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[29] 29. Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD: Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power. Qual Health Res. 2015; 26(13): 1753–60. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Pedersen B, Delmar C, Falkmer U, et al.: Bridging the gap between interviewer and interviewee: developing an interview guide for individual interviews by means of a focus group. Scand J Caring Sci. 2016; 30(3): 631–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Microsoft: Microsoft Teams. 2017.

[32] 32. Otter.ai: Otter.ai- Voice Meeting Notes & Real-time Transcription. California. 2016.

[33] 33. Otranscribe: Otranscribe Open Source. 2023.

[34] 34. NVivo: NVivo: NVivo qualitative data analysis software. QSR International Pty Ltd Melbourne, Australia. 2015.

[35] 35. AQUAD: Open Access "AQUAD" Qualitative Data Analysis. 2023.

[36] 36. Hoover RS, Koerber AL: Using NVivo to Answer the Challenges of Qualitative Research in Professional Communication: Benefits and Best Practices Tutorial. IEEE Trans Prof Commun. 2011; 54(1): 68–82. Publisher Full Text

[37] 37. Braun V, Clarke V: Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2019; 11(4): 589–97. Publisher Full Text

[38] 38. Braun V, Clarke V: One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qual Res Psychol. 2021; 18(3): 328–52. Publisher Full Text

[39] 39. Korstjens I, Moser A: Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. Eur J Gen Pract. 2018; 24(1): 120–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[40] 40. O.Nyumba T, Wilson K, Derrick CJ, et al.: The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods Ecol Evol. 2018; 9(1): 20–32. Publisher Full Text

[41] 41. Charmaz K: Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. sage; 2006. Reference Source

[42] 42. Birt L, Scott S, Cavers D, et al.: Member Checking: A Tool to Enhance Trustworthiness or Merely a Nod to Validation? Qual Health Res. 2016; 26(13): 1802–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[43] 43. Krueger RA: Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. 1993. Publisher Full Text

Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Background and rationale

Study design

Design

Participants

Sample

Inclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria

Ethical and regulatory considerations

Recruitment

Focus group procedure

Interview procedure

Data collection and analysis

Data management

Definition of end of study

Quality assurance procedures

Protocol study status

Expenses and benefits

Insurance

Data availability statement

Extended data

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!

Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Background and rationale

Study design

Design

Participants

Sample

Inclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria

Ethical and regulatory considerations

Recruitment

Focus group procedure

Interview procedure

Data collection and analysis

Data management

Definition of end of study

Quality assurance procedures

Protocol study status

Expenses and benefits

Insurance

Data availability statement

Extended data

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!