Optimising cultural provision to improve older people’s wellbeing through social prescribing in the context of COVID-19: what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and why?
A systematic review aimed at improving older people's wellbeing in the context of COVID-19, through social prescribing.
Citation
Review question
Optimising cultural provision to improve older people’s wellbeing through social prescribing in the context of COVID-19: what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and why?
Searches
As this is a rapid realist review, with a time limited duration, the search for literature will be purposive rather than exhaustive (Pawson et al., 2005).
Types of study to be included
A range of literature will be considered, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research, existing evidence reviews, policy documents, evaluations, reports and blogs.
Condition or domain being studied
The role of the cultural sector in supporting personal wellbeing.
Participants/population
Older people (aged ≥ 70 years) as this was the age group defined as particularly ‘at risk’ from the pandemic.
Intervention(s), exposure(s)
Social prescribing and the cultural sector’s potential role in this activity within the context of COVID-19. By social prescribing we mean the direction of patients to non‐medical, community or social activities to help them manage and prevent illness and improve their health and wellbeing (Husk et al., 2020).
Comparator(s)/control
Not applicable.
Main outcome(s)
To develop a programme theory that explains mechanisms, contexts and circumstances associated with outcomes from the cultural sector playing a role in social prescribing for older people within the context of COVID-19.
* Measures of effect
Not applicable.
Additional outcome(s)
None.
* Measures of effect
Not applicable.
Data extraction (selection and coding)
References will be screened for inclusion by title and abstract, and if further information is required, full texts will be retrieved and read.
Risk of bias (quality) assessment
Papers will be evaluated as being conceptually rich or thin based on previous approaches to doing this (Ritzer, 1991; Roen et al., 2006), allowing reviewers to initially focus data extraction and analysis on conceptually richer papers, whilst not excluding those that may be weaker but could still make an important contribution to the final programme theory.
Strategy for data synthesis
A realist logic of analysis will be used to integrate data into a final programme theory, to understand potential outcomes associated with the cultural sector’s role in social prescribing for older people; exploring in particular, for whom these outcomes occur, in what circumstances and why.
Analysis of subgroups or subsets
None planned.
Contact details for further information
Stephanie Tierney
stephanie.tierney@phc.ox.ac.uk
Organisational affiliation of the review
Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, University of Oxford
Review team members and their organisational affiliations
Dr Stephanie Tierney. University of Oxford
Assistant/Associate Professor Geoff Wong. University of Oxford
Amadea Turk. University of Oxford
Lucy Shaw. University of Oxford
Professor Helen Chatterjee. University College London
Dr Kerryn Husk. University of Plymouth
Dr Kathryn Eccles. University of Oxford
Dr Caroline Potter. University of Oxford
Beth McDougall. University of Oxford
Dr Harriet Warburton. University of Oxford
Dr Emma Webster. University of Oxford
Nia Roberts. University of Oxford
Assistant/Associate Professor Kamal Mahtani. University of Oxford
Type and method of review
Epidemiologic, Intervention, Service delivery, Systematic review, Other
Anticipated or actual start date
01 October 2020
Anticipated completion date
01 March 2021
Funding sources/sponsors
UKRI Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC)
Grant number(s)
State the funder, grant or award number and the date of award
AH/V008781/1 Awarded Sept 2020
Conflicts of interest
Language
English
Country
England
Stage of review
Review Ongoing
Subject index terms status
Subject indexing assigned by CRD
Subject index terms
Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Coronavirus; Coronavirus Infections; COVID-19; Cultural Competency; Culturally Competent Care; Delivery of Health Care; Healthcare Disparities; Health Status Disparities; Humans; Pandemics; Public Health; Quality of Life; Social Determinants of Health; Social Planning
Date of registration in PROSPERO
23 September 2020
Date of first submission
23 September 2020
Stage of review at time of this submission
Stage | Started | Completed |
---|---|---|
Preliminary searches | Yes | No |
Piloting of the study selection process | No | No |
Formal screening of search results against eligibility criteria | No | No |
Data extraction | No | No |
Risk of bias (quality) assessment | No | No |
Data analysis | No | No |
The record owner confirms that the information they have supplied for this submission is accurate and complete and they understand that deliberate provision of inaccurate information or omission of data may be construed as scientific misconduct.
The record owner confirms that they will update the status of the review when it is completed and will add publication details in due course.