Experiences of integrating social prescribing link workers into primary care in England: Bolting on, fitting in or belonging

Background: Following the 2019 NHS Long-Term Plan, link workers (LWs) have been employedacross primary care in England to deliver social prescribing (SP).Aim: To understand and explain how the LW role is being implemented in primary care in England.Design and setting: Realist evaluation undertaken in England.Method: Focused ethnographies around seven LWs from different parts of England. As part of this,we interviewed 61 patients and 93 professionals from healthcare and the voluntary, community andsocial enterprise (VCSE) sector. We reinterviewed 41 patients, seven LWs and a LW manager 9-12months after their first interview.Results: We developed four concepts around how LWs are integrated (or not) within primary care:Centralising or diffusing power; Forging an identity in general practice; Demonstrating effect;Building a facilitative infrastructure. These concepts informed the development of a programmetheory around a continuum of integration of LWs into primary care – from being ‘bolted on’ toexisting provision, without much consideration, to ‘fitting in’, shaping what is delivered to beaccommodating, through to ‘belonging’, whereby they are accepted as a legitimate source ofsupport, making a valued contribution to patients’ broader well-being.Conclusion: SP was introduced into primary care to promote greater attention to the full range offactors affecting patients’ health and well-being, beyond biomedicine. For that to happen, ouranalysis highlights the need for a whole system approach to defining, delivering and maintaining thisnew part of practice

Adding 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy to postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of short-course versus no androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised controlled trial

Background Previous evidence indicates that adjuvant, short-course androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves metastasis-free survival when given with primary radiotherapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the value of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy is unclear. Methods RADICALS-HD was an international randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of ADT used in combination with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to radiotherapy alone (no ADT) or radiotherapy with 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT), using monthly subcutaneous gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue injections, daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as distant metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. Standard survival analysis methods were used, accounting for randomisation stratification factors. The trial had 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 80% to 86% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·67). Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. Findings Between Nov 22, 2007, and June 29, 2015, 1480 patients (median age 66 years [IQR 61–69]) were randomly assigned to receive no ADT (n=737) or short-course ADT (n=743) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 121 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 7·1–10·1), metastasis-free survival events were reported for 268 participants (142 in the no ADT group and 126 in the short-course ADT group; HR 0·886 [95% CI 0·688–1·140], p=0·35). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 79·2% (95% CI 75·4–82·5) in the no ADT group and 80·4% (76·6–83·6) in the short-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 121 (17%) of 737 participants in the no ADT group and 100 (14%) of 743 in the short-course ADT group (p=0·15), with no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation Metastatic disease is uncommon following postoperative bed radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adding 6 months of ADT to this radiotherapy did not improve metastasis-free survival compared with no ADT. These findings do not support the use of short-course ADT with postoperative radiotherapy in this patient population

Duration of androgen deprivation therapy with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of long-course versus short-course androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised trial

Background Previous evidence supports androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with primary radiotherapy as initial treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the use and optimal duration of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. Methods RADICALS-HD was a randomised controlled trial of ADT duration within the RADICALS protocol. Here, we report on the comparison of short-course versus long-course ADT. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after previous radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to add 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT) or 24 months of ADT (long-course ADT) to radiotherapy, using subcutaneous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue (monthly in the short-course ADT group and 3-monthly in the long-course ADT group), daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. The comparison had more than 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 75% to 81% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72). Standard time-to-event analyses were used. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00541047 . Findings Between Jan 30, 2008, and July 7, 2015, 1523 patients (median age 65 years, IQR 60–69) were randomly assigned to receive short-course ADT (n=761) or long-course ADT (n=762) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 138 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 8·9 years (7·0–10·0), 313 metastasis-free survival events were reported overall (174 in the short-course ADT group and 139 in the long-course ADT group; HR 0·773 [95% CI 0·612–0·975]; p=0·029). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 71·9% (95% CI 67·6–75·7) in the short-course ADT group and 78·1% (74·2–81·5) in the long-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 105 (14%) of 753 participants in the short-course ADT group and 142 (19%) of 757 participants in the long-course ADT group (p=0·025), with no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation Compared with adding 6 months of ADT, adding 24 months of ADT improved metastasis-free survival in people receiving postoperative radiotherapy. For individuals who can accept the additional duration of adverse effects, long-course ADT should be offered with postoperative radiotherapy. Funding Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society

Patient buy-in to social prescribing through link workers as part of person-centred care: a realist evaluation

Background: Social prescribing link workers have become part of primary health care in recent years. They help patients to recognise non-medical factors affecting their health and identify sources of support, often in the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector. They form part of wider work to strengthen person-centred care, which actively seeks to engage individuals in decision-making about their health, taking into account their medical, social, psychological, financial and spiritual circumstances. Objective: To understand how buy-in to social prescribing and the link worker role is established for a patient, and how this relates to person-centred care. Design: A realist evaluation. Setting: Patients engaging with link workers in seven different parts of England were involved. Methods: As part of data collection, we observed link workers interacting with 35 patients. We also interviewed 61 patients and re-interviewed 41 of them 9–12 months later. Data were coded and developed into context– mechanism–outcome configurations, which were used to produce a programme theory. Results: Data highlighted how patients might be uncertain about the link worker role but agree to a referral as they sought assistance with their non-medical issues. Patients talked about experiencing a sense of hope through the trust they developed in a link worker. This trust was established through the communication skills and knowledge demonstrated by a link worker, and by their ability to act as an anchor point when required – a reliable, consistent source of support to whom patients could offload. The link worker role also involved connecting patients to external support, which called for sensitivity around how ready someone was to move forward; this was shaped by a patient’s motivation but also their capacity to make changes given other demands in their life. Connecting patients to external support could be affected by structural factors outside the link workers’ control (e.g. housing options or employment opportunities). Limitations: We did not interview patients who had rejected the offer of social prescribing, and most had a positive view of meeting with a link worker. Conclusions: Person-centred care is engendered by link workers through their skills, knowledge and ability to respond to the individual readiness of patients to engage with external support. It can be curtailed by structural factors outside link workers’ sphere of control, such as access to housing or caring responsibilities of patients. This can hinder patients’ ability to ‘connect to’, leaving link workers to continue ‘connecting with’ patients as they act as an anchor point. Future work: Exploration is required of factors affecting patients who interact with a link worker but do not access external support. Longitudinal work with a cohort of patients, speaking to them on a regular basis, may provide further understanding in this respect