1. Evaluating Social Prescribing: Towards an Understanding of Social and Economic Impact Presentation to BVSC Conference 9 th July 2014 Chris Dayson Research Fellow

2. Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research (CRESR), Sheffield Hallam University Leading policy research centre; expertise in public policy evaluation, including voluntary sector led interventions and outcome measurement Worked closely with a number of local voluntary organisations for a number of years Evaluations utilise mixed quantitative and qualitative methods: interviews and case studies; surveys, CBA, SROI Currently evaluating Social Prescribing Pilots in Rotherham and Doncaster Introduction

3. Absence of systematic long term studies Qualitative evidence stronger than quantitative evidence Understanding of effectiveness and 'what works' therefore limited......but suggests real changes evident after 18-24 months: –improved health and quality of life –increased patient satisfaction –fewer primary care consultations –fewer visits to hospital More (better) research and evaluation needed ! Social Prescribing: the evidence base

4. What do we need to find out through an evaluation of social prescribing? –Understand what works and how –Highlight key achievements: output data and case study illustrations –Outcomes for patients and their carers: improvements in well- being and quality of life –Outcomes for the statutory sector: reduced demand for health and social care –Demonstrating a business case: financial return on investment (cost-benefits); social value (social return on investment) Evaluating Social Prescribing

5. Mixed methods approach - also 'co-produced' –Outcome star data at referral and 3-4 months post-referral –Hospital Episode data for 12 months pre/post-referral –Case studies of services and patients –Stakeholder interviews –Survey of funded providers –Longitudinal - evaluating change over 2-3 years –Reporting process embedded in (re)commissioning cycle Evaluating Social Prescribing in Rotherham

6. Mixed methods approach - part of a wider evaluation of LA investment in preventative community services: –Process and impact evaluation –Social prescribing as a case study (x2) –Principles of 'co-production' –Stakeholder and patient interviews –Common 'Quality of Life and Outcome Tool' at referral, and 6 and 12 months post-referral –Hospital Episodes data 12 months pre/post-referral –Understanding 'patient journeys' through a range of services –Programme wide and comparative evaluation Evaluating Social Prescribing in Doncaster

7. Rotherham Pilot Interim and Final Reports Outcomes for the Public Sector –Positive signs, but too soon to say for certain –Evidence that use of Hospital Care is reducing –Potential for NHS costs to reduce Outcomes for patients and cares –Clear evidence of social value: improvements in well- being, mental health, isolation, independence –Positive social return on investment in the first year Emerging Evaluation Findings

8. Outcomes for the VCS –Broader funding base improves sustainability –Opportunity to innovate and diversify –Opportunity to contribute to strategic health priorities –Demonstrates to commissioners what the sector can do The effectiveness of the 'Rotherham model' –Positive about the lead infrastructure role (VAR) –Strong case for specific funded Social Prescribing services –A good example of how devolved 'micro-commissioning' can work Emerging Evaluation Findings

9. Importance of building a robust evidence base founded on common principles Effective evaluation needs: –Buy-in from key stakeholders –Long-term commitment –Co-production –Effective monitoring systems and processes –Methodological robustness –Clear and concise findings –Practical recommendations Some Reflections

10. Impacts will take time to emerge Outcomes for patients (social value) will emerge first –Well-being improves quickly –As does mental health, social isolation, independence etc –Important 'first steps' in community involvement/participation Outcomes for the public sector take longer to emerge –Reductions in service use might not be identified for at least 2 years –'Payback' not immediate –Potential for wider benefits (social care) –Long term commissioning 'vision' essential Some Reflections

11. Happy to answer any questions, now or later Contact email: c.dayson@shu.ac.ukc.dayson@shu.ac.uk Links to Rotherham Interim Reports: –http://www.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/rothe rham-social-prescribing-final.pdfhttp://www.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/rothe rham-social-prescribing-final.pdf –http://www.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/rothe rham-social-prescribing-summary.pdfhttp://www.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/rothe rham-social-prescribing-summary.pdf Final report of the Rotherham pilot will be published in September Doncaster reports will be published during 2015-16 Thank you!

12. Evaluating Social Prescribing: Towards an Understanding of Social and Economic Impact