Introduction

The social prescribing movement is creating a paradigm shift in our understanding of how to achieve health and wellbeing by shifting the conversation from ‘what is the matter with you’ to ‘what matters to you’ [1]. Social prescribing is “a means for trusted individuals in clinical and community settings to identify that a person has non-medical, health-related social needs and to subsequently connect them to non-clinical supports and services within the community by co-producing a social prescription–a non-medical prescription, to improve health and wellbeing and to strengthen community connections” [2 p. 9]. Altogether, there are over 20 countries involved in the social prescribing movement, and this number is rapidly increasing [1].

Across the globe, student champions are supporting this work by building the social prescribing student movement. There are student groups in Australia, Canada, Japan, Portugal, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States [3], and this list continues to grow. Collectively, this global network of student champions has developed the Social Prescribing International Student Movement Framework [3] and established the Global Social Prescribing Student Council. In Canada, the Canadian Social Prescribing Student Collective was established in 2022 [4]. Our mission is to build the social prescribing student movement across Canada. As the Canadian Social Prescribing Student Collective Research Working Group, our aim is to build the evidence base around social prescribing. Given the focus of our group, we are particularly interested in the multiple intersections and reciprocal influence between social prescribing and students.

Students have a critical role to play in shaping the wider social prescribing movement [3]. Indeed, students are able and willing to meaningfully contribute to social prescribing research, policy, and practice, such as supporting efforts to generate robust evidence on social prescribing, assisting with policy development around social prescribing, or taking on the connector role in social prescribing programs–the sky is the limit when it comes to how students can engage.

Students also stand to benefit from social prescribing. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, students were experiencing high rates of mental health challenges [5, 6]. As a result of the pandemic, students are dealing with increasing levels of housing and food insecurity, financial hardships, and lack of social connectedness and sense of belonging, which not only negatively impacts student health and wellbeing but also academic performance [6]. It is apparent that upstream approaches are needed to meet the needs of this population [7]. This suggests that social prescribing may have a key role to play in supporting student health and wellbeing.

It is also necessary to consider the importance of this topic in relation to the global healthcare crisis. As tomorrow’s leaders, students need to be equipped with the necessary tools to address this seemingly insurmountable challenge [3]. Social prescribing is one such tool that shows promise to transform health systems across the globe [1]. This points to the need to educate today’s learners on this tool to ensure that tomorrow’s leaders have it in their toolbox.

Given the numerous linkages between social prescribing and students, there is a need to understand the extent and type of evidence on social prescribing and students. A preliminary search of PROSPERO, MEDLINE (Ovid), JBI EBP Database (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Google, and Google Scholar was conducted on April 12, 2023. Only one underway evidence review on social prescribing and students was found [8], which is narrowly focused on enhancing student wellbeing through social prescribing. Notably, no evidence reviews with an aim to understand the extent and type of evidence on social prescribing and students were found. This calls for a review of the evidence on this topic.

There are several different types of evidence reviews [9]. Scoping reviews are conducted to examine the scope of a body of literature on a specific topic [9–12]. It is apparent that this is the most appropriate method to map the evidence on this topic since this type of review is useful for reviewing evidence in emerging fields or topics and for addressing broad review questions [10–12].

This scoping review aims to understand the extent and type of evidence on social prescribing and students. Knowledge gaps in the evidence base will be identified. The implications of the findings for the social prescribing student movement and the wider social prescribing movement will be discussed.

Methods

This protocol has been registered on Open Science Framework (osf.io/m3ura) and published in this journal to promote transparency. This protocol was developed according to best practice guidance for scoping review protocols from the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group [13]. This review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews [11] and will be reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [14].

Search strategy

The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished literature. An initial limited search of MEDLINE (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) was undertaken to identify evidence sources on the topic. The text words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant evidence sources, and the index terms used to describe the evidence sources, were used to develop a full search strategy for MEDLINE (Ovid) in Table 1. The search strategy was developed in consultation with an academic health sciences librarian. The research team will adapt the search strategy, including all identified keywords and index terms, for each included database and source of grey literature. This will be done in consultation with the academic health sciences librarian. The reference lists of all included evidence sources will be screened for additional evidence sources. No language or date restrictions will be placed on the search. In the event that translation becomes necessary, the review team will use DeepL Translator (DeepL SE, Cologne, Germany).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Search strategy for MEDLINE (Ovid).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289981.t001

The databases to be searched include MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), AMED (Ovid), ASSIA (ProQuest), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), Global Health (Ovid), Web of Science (Clarivate), Epistemonikos, JBI EBP Database (Ovid), and Cochrane Library. Sources of gray literature to be searched include Google, Google Scholar, Social Care Online (Social Care Institute for Excellence), SIREN Evidence and Resource Library (Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network), and websites of social prescribing organizations and networks, including the Social Prescribing Network, the Social Prescribing Youth Network, the Global Social Prescribing Alliance, the National Academy for Social Prescribing, and the Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing. Additionally, a request for evidence sources will be sent out to members of the Global Social Prescribing Student Council.

Data extraction

Data will be extracted from evidence sources included in the scoping review by two independent reviewers using a data extraction tool developed by the research team. The data extracted will include specific details about the objective, participants, concept, context, methods, and key findings relevant to the review questions. A draft data extraction tool is provided in Table 2. This tool will be modified and revised as necessary during the process of extracting data from each included evidence source. Modifications will be detailed in the scoping review. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. Authors of evidence sources will be contacted to request missing or additional data, where required.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Draft data extraction tool.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289981.t002

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Amanda Ross-White, an academic health sciences librarian at Queen’s University and an associate of the Queen’s Collaboration for Health Care Quality: A JBI Centre of Excellence, for helping us to develop the search strategy for this review.