Keywords
Non-medical interventions, community-based care, social prescribing, older adults, ageing, scoping review
This article is included in the Ageing Populations collection.
Background As global populations age, there is an increasing need for community-based approaches that support older adults in maintaining independence, social connectedness, and access to services. One emerging model is the Community Connector, an individual who facilitates older adults’ engagement with local supports that promote well-being. Despite growing references to this role in national and international practice, there is limited comprehensive understanding of how Community Connectors are defined, implemented, and evaluated across diverse contexts, and how these insights may inform adaptation within varying health and social care systems. Objectives The objectives of the scoping review are to (1) identify and characterise international models of Community Connector roles and their key interventions, including modes of delivery (2) describe key characteristics of populations they serve and (3) summarise reported outcomes. Methods This scoping review will follow the methodological framework of Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and will be reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The study design was chosen due to its capacity to comprehensively map and synthesise the existing literature on international Community Connectors, particularly given the limited nature of the evidence. A comprehensive search will be conducted from 2000 to present, across academic databases [CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Embase, PubMed, OVID, Scopus] and grey literature to identify Community Connectors targeting older adults. Two reviewers will independently screen studies for inclusion based on the criteria of full-text, qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies. Data on programme characteristics, target populations, measured outcomes and contextual factors will be extracted, charted, and synthesised using a narrative approach. Conclusions The review will characterise international Community Connectors, including their core functions, role titles, target population and implementation strategies. It will also examine evaluation methods and assess their potential for adaptation and scale-up across healthcare settings. Scoping Review Registration OSF https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6CZD8
Non-medical interventions, community-based care, social prescribing, older adults, ageing, scoping review
The second version of this protocol includes several refinements to improve clarity, consistency, and methodological transparency. First, role titles relating to community connectors have been standardised throughout the document. In the initial version, multiple terms were used interchangeably to describe the role (e.g., community connector, community connector model). In the revised protocol, a consistent role title, Community Connectors, is used across all sections to ensure clarity and avoid ambiguity in the description of the intervention.
Second, some minor spelling and typographical errors identified in the first version have been corrected. These edits were made to improve the readability and professionalism of the protocol without altering its content.
Third, the revised protocol provides a clearer explanation of the grey literature search strategy. In response to peer reviewer feedback, additional detail has been included on how grey literature was identified and searched. Specifically, the protocol now outlines that grey literature was searched and screened using the source suggested by the peer reviewer.
Overall, these revisions do not change the aims or core methodology of the review. Instead, they enhance consistency in role titles, correct minor grammar issues, and improve transparency in the reporting of the search strategy, particularly in relation to the grey literature. These updates strengthen the protocol's clarity and ensure it more closely aligns with best practice guidance for scoping review reporting.
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Vivian Welch and Linda Manirambona
The global population is ageing at an unprecedented rate due to a combination of declining fertility rates and increasing life expectancy. According to the World Health Organisation approximately 1.4 billion of the population are currently over the age of 60 years, which is set to double to 2.1 billion by 2050 (United Nations, 2019; WHO, 2022). This demographic shift is primarily driven by reduced birth rates, improved healthcare, and advancements in disease prevention, leading to longer life spans (Christensen et al., 2009). While increased longevity is a sign of medical and social progress, it is also accompanied by a rise in multi-morbidity, defined as the co-existence of two or more chronic conditions, which poses significant challenges to healthcare systems and social care systems worldwide (Marengoni et al., 2011). Ageing with multiple morbidities presents substantial challenges such as increased healthcare needs, higher risk of disability, cognitive decline, reduced quality of life, and heightened mortality risk (Barnett et al., 2012).
With rising healthcare costs (Hayes et al., 2024; Trépel et al., 2024) service providers have increasingly sought ways to better support older adults with complex needs (Burke et al., 2018; Demiris et al., 2020; Government of Ireland, 1988). In doing so, there has been a growing recognition that traditional healthcare models fail to address the broader determinants of health, such as social support, housing, nutrition and access to community resources (Kimberlee, 2015; Kingsfund, 2017; Polley et al., 2017). These factors play a critical role in shaping health outcomes and overall well-being yet historically, these have been overlooked in favour of a disease-centred approach (Giebel et al., 2022; Williams et al., 2023). As a result, many older adults experience a poorer quality of life despite having medical care, as their social and environmental needs remain unmet (Husk et al., 2019). To address this gap, there has been a shift towards more holistic and integrated care models that emphasise person-centred approaches, social prescribing, and community-based interventions for older adults (Chatterjee et al., 2018; Pescheny et al., 2020).
Social prescribing connects individuals with complex needs to community-based non-medical support services (Bickerdike et al., 2017; Kiely et al., 2022). Community connectors, an operational model of social prescribing, is grounded in the principles of holistic and person-centred care (Polley et al., 2017). It recognises that medical care alone is insufficient for improving quality of life and that community-based interventions are essential in promoting well-being and independence among the older population (Giebel et al., 2022; Littleford & Kralik, 2010). A Community Connector is a non-medical professional who is typically based in the community setting. However, this can vary internationally as demonstrated in the UK where Community Connectors appear to be embedded within primary care settings. Despite such variables, Community Connectors address wider social determinants of health through non-medical interventions and the development of an individualised and collaborative health and well-being plan, while offering support to connect with community services (Wilson et al., 2025). Preliminary evidence has suggested that the Community Connector initiative has the potential to address broader determinants of health by enhancing social connections, improving mental and physical health and increasing utilisation of health services (Prendergast & Alexander, 2023; Wallace et al., 2020). However, despite its potential benefits, significant barriers exist due to the lack of a standardised approach in implementing such models.
While Community Connectors share the common goal of addressing social determinants of health, there are key differences in how they operate globally. A significant challenge is the lack of a clear definition due to variations in their structure and implementation (Kiely et al., 2022). For instance, in the United Kingdom they are known as link workers formally embedded in the National Health Service (NHS, 2019), while in Australia (Larson et al., 2024; Sharman et al., 2022) and New Zealand (Boulton et al., 2009), they are called community navigators, focusing on culturally appropriate care for Indigenous populations. In Canada (CPHA, 2022) and the U.S., they are referred to as community health workers, primarily supporting marginalised groups (Larson et al., 2024). In Ireland, Community Connectors function within integrated care programs, assisting older adults with complex social and health needs (Hannan & Sieger-Jamison, 2024). Thus, without clear guidelines or a unified framework, there is considerable variation in how these services are delivered, leading to inconsistencies in their effectiveness. This was emphasised in a recent systematic review conducted by Kiely et al. (Kiely et al., 2022), which examined evidence from randomised controlled trials and controlled before-after studies to determine the effectiveness of social prescribing link workers. Findings from this review demonstrated significant heterogeneity in intervention design, populations served, and outcome measures across studies, leading to inconsistent evidence regarding the impact of social prescribing on health outcomes and healthcare utilisation (Kiely et al., 2022). Furthermore, authors of this review called for future research to better understand the components of social prescribing and outcomes considered for older adults (Kiely et al., 2022).
The scoping review aims to identify and characterise the role of Community Connectors in supporting older adults, including their key interventions and modes of delivery; to describe the populations they serve, and to summarise the reported outcomes associated with these interventions. This review addresses a key gap in the literature by examining Community Connectors across acute, primary, and community care settings to provide a comprehensive understanding of their roles in diverse healthcare contexts.
Objectives
The objectives of the scoping review are to (1) identify and characterise international roles of Community Connectors and their key interventions, including modes of delivery (2) describe key characteristics of populations they serve and (3) summarise reported outcomes.
A scoping review design has been selected due to its suitability for mapping the breadth of existing literature on international Community Connector roles, interventions, and outcomes, particularly given the limited nature of the evidence and the emerging status of the field. The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Arksey and O’Malley (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005) scoping review framework and later refined by Levac et al. (Levac et al., 2010) and the Joanna Briggs Institute. The review will also adhere to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist to ensure transparency and rigour in reporting. The scoping review is registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) and any changes to the proposed protocol will be reported with justifications provided.
Given the absence of a universally accepted definition of Community Connector roles in the literature, a working definition was developed for this study which can broadly be defined as non-clinical providers, such as community health workers, link workers, patient navigators or social prescribing facilitators, who support older adults to navigate and access community-based resources (Moffatt et al., 2017; Hannan and Sieger-Jamison, 2024).
Studies will be included if they describe, evaluate or conceptualise the role of Community Connectors (including equivalent roles) that aim to support older adults (aged 60 years and older) in accessing community-based health or social care services. Eligible sources may include both empirical and theoretical work, with no restrictions on study design; qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies will all be considered. No restrictions will be placed on the countries in which studies are conducted, however only studies published in English will be eligible for inclusion.
A comprehensive search will be conducted across multiple electronic databases including CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Embase, PubMed, OVID and Scopus to identify relevant peer-reviewed literature.
In addition to academic databases, a grey literature search will be conducted in the following databases: grey literature sources (DART-Europe E-theses portal, https://libereurope.eu/article/dart-europe/, Open Grey, Grey Literature Report (New York Academy of Medicine): www.greylit.org/, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ): www.ahrq.gov/, JBI: https://jbi.global/ and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE): www.nice.org.uk/, and Trip Medical database) and Trial registries including the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP): https://www.who.int/tools/clinical-trials-registry-platform will be searched. The reference list of included sources of evidence in the review will be searched for additional sources.
Search terms will be adapted to the indexing of each database using Boolean operators (AND, OR) to combine concepts. Search terms will incorporate both keywords and controlled vocabulary (subject headings) relevant to the PCC framework (Population, Concept, Context). Keywords will be derived from the titles and abstracts of pertinent articles and will contribute to the development of the final search strategy, alongside database-specific subject headings aligned with the PCC elements.
An example search strategy for EBSCO is as follows:
• TI ('aged' OR 'elderly' OR 'elderly' OR 'older adult*' OR 'older population*' OR 'geriatric*' OR 'senior*' OR 'elder*' OR 'old aged*' OR 'older person*') OR AB ('aged' OR 'elderly' OR 'elderly' OR 'older adult*' OR 'older population*' OR 'geriatric*' OR 'senior*' OR 'elder*' OR 'old aged*' OR 'older person*')
AND
• (social prescribing OR TI ('social prescribing*' OR 'community connector' OR 'lay person' OR 'linkworker' OR 'link-worker' OR 'link worker' OR 'community health worker' OR 'community health facilitator' OR 'patient navigator'/exp OR 'patient navigator' OR 'well-being programme') OR AB ('social prescribing*' OR 'community connector' OR 'lay person' OR 'linkworker' OR 'link-worker' OR 'link worker' OR 'community health worker' OR 'community health facilitator' OR 'patient navigator' OR 'well-being programme').
These will be adapted according to the indexing of each database and logged in a master search strategy form using Microsoft Word. In accordance with replicability, a descriptive account of each search strategy of the databases will be provided in the appendix.
A comprehensive scoping review of the existing literature will be undertaken to map the current state of knowledge related to the international role and scope of Community Connectors for older adults. The review will include peer-reviewed articles, systematic reviews and relevant grey literature published since 2000. Grey literature will be systematically identified using relevant organisational websites, grey literature databases, and search engines using predefined search terms (Godin et al., 2015). All retrieved records will undergo an initial screening of titles and abstracts conducted by DM to assess eligibility against the predefined inclusion criteria. Articles deemed potentially relevant will subsequently undergo full-text review. The screening and study selection process will be independently verified by CH to ensure methodological rigour and consistency in the inclusion of studies.
A standardised data charting form will be developed using Microsoft Excel, based on the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) data extraction tool for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020). The form will be piloted by two independent reviewers (DM and CH) on a sample of studies to ensure clarity and relevance and will be refined as needed. Following piloting, data will be charted by one reviewer (DM) using Rayann software. This will be cross-checked by a second reviewer (CH) to ensure accuracy and consistency. Any discrepancies identified during this process will be resolved through discussion, and if consensus cannot be reached, a third reviewer (RG) will be consulted to adjudicate.
Assessment of the risk of bias or methodological quality of included studies is not relevant as the aim of this scoping review is to characterise international models of Community Connector roles for older adults (Peters et al., 2020).
The following data items will be extracted from each included source:
• Author(s)
• Year of publication, and country of study
• Study design and methodology
• Name or description of the setting in which the Community Connector are implemented (e.g., community, primary care, social services)
• Definitions of Community Connectors or relevant intervention terms, if outlined in the study
• Target population characteristics (e.g., age group, health or social needs); details of implementation processes
• Outcomes measured and indicators used and
• Information on funding sources or declarations of interest
These items will support a comprehensive synthesis of how Community Connectors are conceptualised, applied, and evaluated across diverse contexts.
The synthesis of results will be guided by the Population-Concept-Context (PCC) framework, as recommended by Joanna Briggs Institute for scoping reviews (Peters et al., 2020). Extracted data will be organised to capture key characteristics across included studies, including the target population, Community Connector components, implementation strategies, outcomes measured, and contextual factors. A descriptive numerical summary will be used to map the distribution of studies by variables such as publication year, country, setting, study design, and population characteristics.
Qualitative data will be analysed narratively (i.e., narrative descriptions of roles, implementation processes, and experiences) to identify common patterns, functions and challenges associated with Community Connectors. A basic coding framework will be developed to categorise emerging themes. Quantitative data will undergo basic descriptive analysis to summarise variables such as publication year, country of study, and population characteristics. Findings will be presented in narrative form and supported by tables and visual mappings where appropriate to enable interpretation and knowledge dissemination.
Findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed open-access journal, conference presentations and target summaries for practitioners. Where possible, public-facing materials will be developed to enhance accessibility and knowledge distribution.
This scoping review will provide a comprehensive overview of international Community Connectors supporting older adults, highlighting variations in strategies, outcomes and contextual influences. It will provide critical insights into how these models can be adapted to other health and social care landscapes.
No data are associated with this protocol.
Open Science Framework: Characterising the Role and Scope of Community Connectors for Older Adults Internationally: A Scoping Review Protocol. Available at: https://osf.io/6czd8/overview. DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6CZD8.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Social prescribing, scoping reviews, health promotion, physical activity
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, community-based assets, applied health research, mental health and multi-morbidity
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
References
1. Godin K, Stapleton J, Kirkpatrick S, Hanning R, et al.: Applying systematic review search methods to the grey literature: a case study examining guidelines for school-based breakfast programs in Canada. Systematic Reviews. 2015; 4 (1). Publisher Full TextCompeting Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Social prescribing, scoping reviews, health promotion, physical activity
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?
Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
Yes
References
1. Tierney S, Westlake D, Wong G, Turk A, et al.: Experiences of integrating social prescribing link workers into primary care in England — bolting on, fitting in, or belonging: a realist evaluation. British Journal of General Practice. 2025; 75 (752): e195-e202 Publisher Full TextCompeting Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Evidence synthesis,global health,health equity and healthy ageing.
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
| Invited Reviewers | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | |
|
Version 2 (revision) 16 Apr 26 |
read | ||
|
Version 1 29 Oct 25 |
read | read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Register with HRB Open Research
Already registered? Sign in
Submission to HRB Open Research is open to all HRB grantholders or people working on a HRB-funded/co-funded grant on or since 1 January 2017. Sign up for information about developments, publishing and publications from HRB Open Research.
We'll keep you updated on any major new updates to HRB Open Research
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)