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

Social Prescribing, long-term conditions, focus groups, link worker, community health worker, self-management ALL Metrics - Views Downloads 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 3; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res 2024, 6:42 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13762.3) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente Select a format first ▬ ✚ Study Protocol Revised Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers [version 3; peer review: 2 approved] Declan J. O'Sullivan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7663-7580 1, Lindsay M. Bearne2, Janas M. Harrington https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6238-7031 3, Joseph G. McVeigh https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0789-1419 1Declan J. O'Sullivan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7663-7580 1, Lindsay M. Bearne2, Janas M. Harrington https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6238-7031 3, Joseph G. McVeigh https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0789-1419 1 PUBLISHED 09 Jan 2024 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 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 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 Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Janas M. Harrington Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Joseph G. McVeigh Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the Public and Patient Involvement collection. This article is included in the Ageing Populations collection. 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. Six toeight participants will be recruited into three specific 60 to 90 minute focus groups relative to their role as a patient, link worker and community-based service. 8 to12 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. The conclusions made from this study will help inform the next study, which will aim to develop a pilot SP service for patients with long-term musculoskeletal conditions as part of an overall larger project. Social Prescribing, long-term conditions, focus groups, link worker, community health worker, self-management Corresponding Author(s) Declan J. O'Sullivan ([email protected]) Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2024 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 3; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res 2024, 6:42 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13762.3) 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) I thank the reviewer for their helpful comments. I have made the necessary changes to sentence structuring and grammar. Some points raised by reviewer 2 were previously highlighted by reviewer 1 and have since been addressed. The most important consideration to take from reviewer 2 was the justification for sample size and the attainment of information power. I think I have addressed this concern in my latest revision. I have also highlighted that the sample will be recruited from middle to low socioeconomic areas in order to satisfy the aims and inclusion criteria of the study. I thank the reviewer for their helpful comments. I have made the necessary changes to sentence structuring and grammar. Some points raised by reviewer 2 were previously highlighted by reviewer 1 and have since been addressed. The most important consideration to take from reviewer 2 was the justification for sample size and the attainment of information power. I think I have addressed this concern in my latest revision. I have also highlighted that the sample will be recruited from middle to low socioeconomic areas in order to satisfy the aims and inclusion criteria of the study. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Fiona Cramp See the authors' detailed response to the review by Candice Oster Long-term conditions (LTC) are typically characterised as non-self-limiting, persistent specific illness or multiple illnesses co-existing simultaneously1,2 which cause reduced quality of life and physical capacity and increase with age3. Population growth, decreased socioeconomic circumstances and increasing age of individuals living with LTC place an extensive burden on society4. Management of LTCs is 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 LTC7–9. Self-management approaches10 aiming to improve the day-to-day management of chronic illness include positive lifestyle changes and health literacy education11–13 to help 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 ‘tailored’ where support is more intensive to address unmet physical and mental health needs16,20. The evidence base around the use of SP models is emerging but of mixed results14,21,22. Reviews have highlighted the lack of robust methodological evaluation22,23, inappropriate use of comparative outcome measures, high attrition rate and lack of appropriate controls14,24 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. The outcomes from this qualitative research will inform development of a later pilot study examining the effectiveness of broad or tailored SP models in people with long-term musculoskeletal conditions. Aims and objectives. The aim of this qualitative study is to explore the implementation, utility and effectiveness of SP interventions in people with LTCs and those link workers, health care professionals and community based services who are engaged in SP interventions. The information collated from this study will inform a later pilot study examining the effectiveness of a specific SP intervention for individuals with long-term musculoskeletal conditions. This study will utilise qualitative methodology25. The study will include four focus groups and one series of one-to-one interviews. One focus group will be conducted with people with LTC who have participated in SP programmes, one with link workers, one focus group will be conducted with HCPs who can refer to SP programmes and a focus group with community-based services that facilitate referrals from link workers. Each focus group will consist of six-to-eight participants. Individual semi-structured interviews will be conducted with 12 GP’s. The four focus groups will be held on-line primarily but may also be in-person if online opportunities are unavailable. Each focus group discussion will be 60 to 90 minutes long. The semi-structured interviews with GPs will be held in person or Microsoft teams, each lasting 35 to 45 minutes depending on the time constraints of the GP. A predefined interview schedule will be developed and piloted with people with LTC and Link-workers to ensure important issues relevant to this population may be thoroughly explored through appropriate questions. The focus groups and semi-structured interviews will be moderated by Declan O’Sullivan (DOS) (principle researcher) and assisted by an experienced researcher in qualitative research (JMcV). This study will use a qualitative descriptive design26 which will enable participants to voice their opinions and permit researchers to explore the phenomenon of interest27. Further focus groups and interviews will be conducted if the information power has not been reached with the planned number of focus groups or interviews28. Four focus groups comprising of six-to-eight participants each and 12 one-to-one semi-structured interviews will be conducted. The sample size and information power required to address a study’s aim is difficult to estimate in advance of undertaking qualitative research28–30. To address this, guidance was taken from previous researchers who have examined this area, for example Malterud et al.28 recommended that the aims of the study, sample specificity, use of established theory, quality of the dialogue and analysis strategy influence your sample size to achieve sufficient information power. In consideration of this work, it is believed that the narrowness of this study’s aim coupled with the study participants’ experience of the phenomenon of interest (SP) will enable extraction of all relevant information from our planned focus groups. The data being sought from the study participants is not complex but given the participant’s background is expected to be rich, which should facilitate a thorough analysis of data and identification of emerging thematic codes. The design of this study has committed to conducting 12 one-to-one semi-structured interviews based on the research conducted by Guest et al.30 who reported that 97% of thematic codes could be identified with 12 interviews. In recognising, the necessity for systematic reflection and reviews throughout the data collection process, further focus groups or interviews will be conducted until thematic exhaustion has been reached. The participants recruited for this study will be: 1. People living in middle-to-low socioeconomic areas within the South -South West Hospital group regions 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 eighteen years 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). 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. 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 1st 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). Purposive sampling will be used to recruit participants voluntarily to take part in four focus groups and one semi-structured interview from regions identified as middle to low socioeconomic areas across the Health Service Executive, South-Southwest hospital group regions. Purposive sampling will be used to recruit participants for each focus group and interview group: Focus group one: Adults with long-term conditions (n=6–8) from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds Focus group two: Healthcare providers including physiotherapist, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists, GPs, and social workers (n=8–12) Focus group three: A ‘Gate Keeper’ will be used to recruit link workers (n=6–8) for a focus group. Focus group four: Facilitators working in community-based services (n=6–8) Interveiw group: General practitioners 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. Group 2 may also be recruited indirectly through flyers, social media posts and posters containing the contact details of the principle researcher (DOS). For the interview group, 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). 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 sent an email with a M-Teams 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. 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. 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. Qualitative data will be collected via the focus groups and interviews. 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)31 or open access otranscribe32. If the focus groups or one to one interviews are conducted on line with Microsoft Teams33, 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 discussion34,36. 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 data27. The data will be scrutinised qualitatively (DOS) using Reflexive Thematic analysis framework37,38 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. The final phase of the thematic analysis will involve interpretation and reporting of findings. As a quality check, member checking of the dataset may be implemented if after data analysis our interpretation of the data may potentially be recognisable to some participants42. If this occurs, participants will be asked to read and comment on the analysis as to its accuracy of their experiences 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. 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. 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. 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 only and will not be remunerated if the focus groups are held online. Participants within the interview group (GPs) will not be remunerated for their time. 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 recommendedReferences - 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, 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. 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 - 27. 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 - 28. 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 - 29. Guest G, Namey E, McKenna K: How Many Focus Groups Are Enough? Building an Evidence Base for Nonprobability Sample Sizes. Field Method. 2016; 29(1): 3–22. Publisher Full Text - 30. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L: How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Method. 2006; 18(1): 59–82. Publisher Full Text - 31. Otter.ai: Otter.ai- Voice Meeting Notes & Real-time Transcription, California. 2016. - 32. Otranscribe: Otranscribe Open Source. 2023. - 33. Microsoft: Microsoft Teams. 2017. - 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. 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 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 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 Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Janas M. Harrington Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing Joseph G. McVeigh Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing 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) Copyright © 2024 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. metrics VIEWS $counts.viewCount downloads Citations 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 3; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res 2024, 6:42 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13762.3) 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. Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE ApprovedThe 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 approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 09 Jan 2024 Revised Views 0 How to cite this report: Cramp F. Reviewer Report For: Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res 2024, 6:42 (https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15155.r37722) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-42/v3#referee-response-37722 https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-42/v3#referee-response-37722 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Reviewer Report 27 Jan 2024 Approved VIEWS 0 The authors have addressed all of my previous ... Continue reading 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. Close 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 CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Cramp F. Reviewer Report For: Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res 2024, 6:42 (https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15155.r37722) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-42/v3#referee-response-37722 https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-42/v3#referee-response-37722 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 12 Oct 2023 Revised Views 0 How to cite this report: Oster C. Reviewer Report For: Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res 2024, 6:42 (https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15118.r36543) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-42/v2#referee-response-36543 https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-42/v2#referee-response-36543 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Reviewer Report 18 Oct 2023 Candice Oster, Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia Approved VIEWS 0 Thank you for your amendments. ... Continue reading 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. Close 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. CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Oster C. Reviewer Report For: Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res 2024, 6:42 (https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15118.r36543) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-42/v2#referee-response-36543 https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-42/v2#referee-response-36543 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 01 Sep 2023 Views 0 How to cite this report: Cramp F. Reviewer Report For: Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res 2024, 6:42 (https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15054.r36023) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-42/v1#referee-response-36023 https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-42/v1#referee-response-36023 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Reviewer Report 06 Oct 2023 Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 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.' ... Continue reading 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. Close ... Continue reading 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.'

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.

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 CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Cramp F. Reviewer Report For: Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res 2024, 6:42 (https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15054.r36023) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-42/v1#referee-response-36023 https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-42/v1#referee-response-36023 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. - Author Response 21 Nov 2023Declan J. O Sullivan, Discipline of Physiotherapy, School of Clinical Therapies, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, T12X7OA, Ireland21 Nov 2023Author Response19th 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 19th 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 conditions19th Oct 2023,Competing Interests: I do not have any conflict of interest declarations Close 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 COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT - Author Response 21 Nov 2023Declan J. O Sullivan, Discipline of Physiotherapy, School of Clinical Therapies, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, T12X7OA, Ireland21 Nov 2023Author Response19th 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 19th 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 conditions19th Oct 2023,Competing Interests: I do not have any conflict of interest declarations Close 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 Views 0 How to cite this report: Oster C. Reviewer Report For: Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res 2024, 6:42 (https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15054.r36018) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-42/v1#referee-response-36018 https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-42/v1#referee-response-36018 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Reviewer Report 15 Sep 2023 Candice Oster, Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 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 ... Continue reading 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. Close 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.

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? 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.

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 HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Oster C. Reviewer Report For: Experience and perceptions of Social Prescribing interventions; a qualitative study with people with long-term conditions, link workers and health care providers [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]. HRB Open Res 2024, 6:42 (https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15054.r36018) The direct URL for this report is: https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-42/v1#referee-response-36018 https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/6-42/v1#referee-response-36018 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. - Author Response 17 Nov 2023Declan J. O Sullivan, Discipline of Physiotherapy, School of Clinical Therapies, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, T12X7OA, Ireland17 Nov 2023Author Response18th 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 18th 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.18th Sept 2023,Competing Interests: I have no competing interests Close 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. COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT - Author Response 17 Nov 2023Declan J. O Sullivan, Discipline of Physiotherapy, School of Clinical Therapies, College of Medicine and Health, University College Cork, Cork, T12X7OA, Ireland17 Nov 2023Author Response18th 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 18th 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.18th Sept 2023,Competing Interests: I have no competing interests Close 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. Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: - Approved - Approved with reservations - Not approved | 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 | Sign up for content alerts You are now signed up to receive this alert 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 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: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' - Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. - You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. - You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). - You work at the same institute as any of the authors. - You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. - You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' - You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. - You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. - You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. 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 close Error 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 Sign In If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. Email us for further assistance. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again 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. Code not correct, please try again Server error, please try again. 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. Please wait...