A Randomized Controlled Trial of Social Prescribing: Comparing a Comprehensive Navigation Model With Signposting

Area of Science:

• Public Health
• Health Services Research
• Social Determinants of Health

Background:

• Social prescribing addresses unmet health and social needs, aiming to reduce health disparities.
• Comparing different social prescribing models is crucial for optimizing interventions.
• Navigation support levels can significantly impact patient outcomes in social prescribing.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare two social prescribing approaches with varying levels of navigation support.
• To evaluate the effectiveness of comprehensive navigation versus signposting for accessing resources.
• To assess the impact on equity, particularly for the Francophone minority population.

Main Methods:

• Randomized controlled trial in primary care practices in Ontario, Canada.
• Intervention: Access to Resources in the Community (ARC) with comprehensive navigation.
• Control: 211-Ontario with informational support only.
• Primary outcome: Self-reported access to needed health/social resources at 3 months.

Main Results:

• The ARC intervention group showed significantly higher self-reported access to needed resources (50.3% vs. 35.8%).
• The ARC model demonstrated an advantage in improving patient experience and engagement in care.
• Francophone patients in the ARC arm had improved access to language-concordant services, reducing inequities.

Conclusions:

• The ARC model of social prescribing is effective in improving resource access and reducing health inequities.
• Comprehensive, longitudinal navigation support is superior to basic signposting.
• Further research should explore the role of in-person visits and optimal patient populations for this model.