support@assignmentexperts.co.uk + 44 7340 9595 39
(2) Notifications
Flat 50% OFF on Every Order
Promo Code: FLAT50Chat GPT & Paraphrasing Tool
My Account

Custom-Written, AI & Plagiarism-Free with Passing "Guaranteed"

UK Based Company
Company Registration# 11483120
Address: International House, 12 Constance Street, London, United Kingdom, E16 2DQ.

Evaluate the appropriateness of different approaches to assessing, planning and evaluating personalised care and social prescribing.

XGBSHN5023 Personalised Care and Social Prescribing

Literature Review

Short introduction to the task:

Evaluate the appropriateness of different approaches to assessing, planning and evaluating personalised care and social prescribing.

Draw conclusions that are analysed on the level of support that these approaches provide for individuals, families and community`s health and wellbeing.

Do ensure you read widely and use academic sources to gain a balanced literature review

WEIGHTING: 60%

WORD COUNT: 2500 WORDS

Key Resources:

Ahluwalia, S. Spicer, J. Storey, K. (Eds) (2020) Collaborative practice in primary and community care. London: Routledge.

Foster, A., Thompson, J., Holding, E., Ariss, S., Mukuria, C., Jacques, R., Akparido, R., & Haywood, A. (2021). Impact of social prescribing to address loneliness: A mixed methods evaluation of a national social prescribing programme. Health & Social Care in the Community, 29(5), 1439–1449. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13200

Hopkins, G., Winrow, E., Davies, C., & Seddon, D. (2023). Beyond social prescribing-The use of social return on investment (SROI) analysis in integrated health and social care interventions in England and Wales: A protocol for a systematic review. PloS One, 18(2), e0277386–e0277386. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277386

McCormack, B. et al (Eds) (2021) Fundamentals of person-centred healthcare practice: a guide for healthcare students. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley.

Nowak, D. A., & Mulligan, K. (2021). Social prescribing: A call to action. Canadian Family Physician, 67(2), 88–91. https://doi.org/10.46747/cfp.670288

Penn, C, and Watermeyer, J. (2018) Communicating across cultures and languages in the health care setting: voices of care. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.

Wakefield, J. R. H., Kellezi, B., Stevenson, C., McNamara, N., Bowe, M., Wilson, I., Halder, M. M., & Mair, E. (2022). Social Prescribing as ‘Social Cure’: A longitudinal study of the health benefits of social connectedness within a Social Prescribing pathway. Journal of Health Psychology, 27(2), 386–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105320944991

Journals

Community Practitioner

Health and Social Care in the Community

Journal of Community Health

Journal of Public Health

Websites

www.socialprescribingnetwork.com/

www.scie.org.uk/

The National Academy for Social Prescribing | NASP (socialprescribingacademy.org.uk)

www.england.nhs.uk/personalisedcare/social-prescribing/

www.culturehealthandwellbeing.org.uk/resources/social-prescribing

www.dnainsight.co.uk/

Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence.

Please add one of the following statements at the end of your work.

Either:

  • This assignment used generative AI in the following ways for the purposes of completing the assignment (choose 1 to 5 of the following): brainstorming, research, planning, feedback, editing.

Or:

  • This assignment did not use generative AI for the purposes of completing the assignment.

General advice

  • Use appropriate academic language and terminology.
  • Correct referencing style in the text and reference list.
  • Proofread!

Assessment 2 – Extended Guidance – Literature Review 2500 words

Suggestion.

Introduction 250 words

Main Body  2000 words

Conclusion 250 words

You will conduct a Literature Review based upon the criteria below, also ensuring you pay attention to the grading grid.  Do ensure you read widely and use academic sources to gain a balanced literature review, there will be sessions in class that cover the structure, how to use critique and also how to research using databases.

L5 Assessment Criteria

Main Themes to be included

Evaluate the appropriateness of different approaches to assessing, planning and evaluating personalised care and social prescribing (40%)

Draw conclusions that are analysed on the level of support that these approaches provide for individuals, families and community`s health and wellbeing. (40%)

The key here is to evaluate the appropriateness of the following, using literature-based evidence:

Assessing, planning and evaluating personalised care and social prescribing do this generally at first using literature and research as your basis.

Then considering 3 key groups analyse and conclude to show the level of support for the following:

  • individuals
  • families
  • communities

Sources and Evidence (10%)

Adherence to Referencing Conventions,

Technical Skills (10%)

Do ensure you reference in text and a reference list at the end in APA 7.

Ensure the literature review is logical and has a good structure, you may use subheadings for a literature review if you wish.  These will be included in the word count.

SHN5023 – Social Prescribing – Assessment 2 – Literature Review  Weigh 60%

Classification:

 

Criterion:

Exceptional 1st

100, 95, 92

Outstanding 1st

88, 85, 82

1st

78, 75, 72

2.1

68, 65, 62

2.2

58, 55, 52

3

48, 45, 42

Fail

38, 35, 32

Abject Fail

25, 20, 10, 0

Evaluate the appropriateness of different approaches to assessing, planning and evaluating personalised care and social prescribing (40%)

Polished Grasp, showing an astute approach to the evaluation of the appropriateness of different approaches to assessing, planning and evaluating personalised care and social prescribing to support individuals, families and community`s health and wellbeing

Comprehensive and confident approach to the evaluation of the appropriateness of different approaches to assessing, planning and evaluating personalised care and social prescribing to support individuals, families and community`s health and wellbeing

Thorough understanding evident and well applied to the evaluation of the appropriateness of different approaches to assessing, planning and evaluating personalised care and social prescribing to support individuals, families and community`s health and wellbeing

Secure, general understanding and reasonable evaluation of the appropriateness of different approaches to assessing, planning and evaluating personalised care and social prescribing to support individuals, families and community`s health and wellbeing

Sound knowledge relevant to the evaluation of the appropriateness of different approaches to assessing, planning and evaluating personalised care and social prescribing to support individuals, families and community`s health and wellbeing

Limited knowledge shows basic evaluation of the appropriateness of different approaches to assessing, planning and evaluating personalised care and social prescribing to support individuals, families and community`s health and wellbeing

Faulty understanding shown in the evaluation of the appropriateness of different approaches to assessing, planning and evaluating personalised care and social prescribing to support individuals, families and community`s health and wellbeing

No understanding within the evaluation of the appropriateness of different approaches to assessing, planning and evaluating personalised care and social prescribing to support individuals, families and community`s health and wellbeing

Draw conclusions that are analysed on the level of support that these approaches provide for individuals, families and community`s health and wellbeing. (40%)

Original and searching analysis, critical appraisal of task and judicious conclusions drawn on the level of support that these approaches provide for individuals, families and community`s health and wellbeing.

Searching analysis with pertinent conclusions drawn on the level of support that these approaches provide for individuals, families and community`s health and wellbeing.

Insightful analysis throughout with appropriate conclusions

Drawn on the level of support that these approaches provide for individuals, families and community`s health and wellbeing.

Strong analysis of salient illustrative examples.

Some general conclusions

Drawn on the level of support that these approaches provide for individuals, families and community`s health and wellbeing.

Some conclusions drawn based on some reasonable comparisons and Examples drawn on the level of support that these approaches provide for individuals, families and community`s health and wellbeing.

Basic analysis.

Remains descriptive, little evaluation or comparison.

Few clear

Conclusions drawn on the level of support that these approaches provide for individuals, families and community`s health and wellbeing.

Insufficient evaluation or attempt to make comparisons.

Conclusions illogical

Insufficient on the level of support that these approaches provide for individuals, families and community`s health and wellbeing.

No evaluation or attempt to make comparisons.

Conclusions illogical or

Absent on the level of support that these approaches provide for individuals, families and community`s health and wellbeing.

Sources and Evidence (10%)

Exceptionally good reference to and application of a wide range of relevant reading from a variety of sources and research informed literature.

Outstanding reference to and application of a wide range of relevant reading from a variety of sources and research informed literature.

Excellent reference to and application of a wide range of relevant reading from a variety of sources and research informed literature.

Very good engagement with a wide range of relevant reading and variety of sources and research informed literature.

Good engagement with an appropriate range of reading beyond essential texts.

Evidence of reading, largely confined to essential texts, but mainly reliant on taught elements.

Poor engagement with essential texts and no evidence of wider reading. Heavily reliant on taught elements.

No evidence of reading or engagement with taught elements.

Adherence to Referencing Conventions, Technical Skills (10%)

 

Flawless application of APA referencing. Exceptional demonstration of subject specific skills and practices.

Flawless application of APA referencing.

Outstanding demonstration of subject specific skills and practices.

Flawless application of APA referencing. Excellent demonstration of subject specific skills and practices.

Consistently accurate application of APA referencing, with no inaccuracies or

Inconsistencies. Very good demonstration of subject specific skills and practices.

APA Referencing may show minor inaccuracies or Inconsistencies.

Good demonstration of subject specific skills and practices.

APA Referencing may show inaccuracies and/or inconsistencies.

Satisfactory demonstration of subject specific skills and practices.

Inconsistent and weak use of APA referencing. Unsatisfactory demonstration of subject specific skills and

Practices.

 

Absent or incoherent APA referencing.

No demonstration  of subject specific skills and practices.

 

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written,
tailored to your instructions

paypal checkout

The services provided by Assignment Experts UK are 100% original and custom written. We never use any paraphrasing tool, any software to generate content for e.g. Chat GPT and all other content writing tools. We ensure that the work produced by our writers is self-written and 100% plagiarism-free.

Discover more


International House, 12 Constance Street, London, United Kingdom,
E16 2DQ

UK Registered Company # 11483120


100% Pass Guaranteed

STILL NOT CONVINCED?

We've produced some samples of what you can expect from our Academic Writing Service - these are created by our writers to show you the kind of high-quality work you'll receive. Take a look for yourself!

View Our Samples

Recent Papers

GBSHN5023 Personalised Care and Social Prescribing - Literature Review (Guide)

This assignment asks you to review and critique the evidence around personalised care and social prescribing, then show what the findings mean for real practice. It is not just a summary of articles; it is a reasoned argument built from high-quality sources, with clear methods, transparent selection of studies, and a balanced assessment of strengths and limits.

What the marker is looking for

  • A focused review question rooted in personalised care/social prescribing.

  • A reproducible search strategy (databases, keywords, dates, limits).

  • Clear inclusion/exclusion criteria and a justified study selection.

  • Critical appraisal using a recognised tool, not just description.

  • A well-structured synthesis (themes or comparisons) with implications for practice and policy.

  • Accurate, consistent referencing.

Step 1: Define a sharp question

Pick a narrow, practice-relevant angle. Examples:

  • “How does link worker–led social prescribing affect anxiety and depression in adults seen in primary care?”

  • “What are the barriers to uptake of social prescribing among adults living with multimorbidity?”

  • “Does social prescribing reduce repeat GP attendance compared with usual care?”

You can shape the question with a framework:

  • PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) for effectiveness questions.

  • SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type) for qualitative/experience questions.

Step 2: Plan and report your search

State exactly how you searched so another student could repeat it.

Databases to consider: MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Scopus or Web of Science. Grey literature may include NHS England, NICE guidance, local ICB reports, and third-sector evaluations.

Keywords and subject headings (adapt as needed):

  • “social prescribing” OR “community referral” OR “link worker”

  • “personalised care” OR “person-centred care” OR “shared decision making”

  • outcomes such as “wellbeing”, “anxiety”, “depression”, “quality of life”, “service use”

  • use truncation and Boolean operators, e.g.
    (“social prescribing” OR “community referral” OR “link worker*”) AND (“wellbeing” OR “quality of life” OR anxiety OR depression)

Limits: English language; publication window suitable for your brief (e.g., last 10 years); adults vs. specific age groups as required.

Log your process: databases searched, dates, search strings, and the number of hits returned.

Step 3: Select studies with transparent criteria

Set inclusion/exclusion rules before screening. Examples:

  • Include: UK and comparable health-system studies; adults in primary/community care; interventions with a recognisable social prescribing pathway (assessment, referral, community asset); outcomes on mental health, social isolation, quality of life, or service use.

  • Exclude: Opinion pieces without data; interventions that are general health promotion with no referral/link worker component; studies without reported outcomes.

Show the flow from total records to included studies (you can describe a PRISMA-style flow in text if diagrams aren’t required).

Step 4: Appraise quality, don’t just summarise

Choose a tool that fits the design:

  • RCTs/cohort: CASP RCT/Cohort checklists or JBI equivalents.

  • Qualitative: CASP Qualitative or JBI QARI.

  • Mixed-methods: MMAT.

Report the main risks of bias (selection, measurement, confounding, attrition). Make clear how appraisal influenced your interpretation (e.g., “findings from small, uncontrolled studies were treated cautiously”).

You must evaluate the appropriateness of different approaches to assessing, planning and evaluating personalised care and social prescribing, and then conclude how well these approaches support individuals, families and communities.

Use the suggested split (Intro 250, Main Body 2,000, Conclusion 250), and yes, you may use subheadings, but they are included in the total word count.

Two things dominate: (a) the evaluation of approaches (40%), and (b) the quality of conclusions about support for individuals/families/communities (40%). The remaining marks are Sources & Evidence (10%) and Referencing/Technical Skills (10%).

Reference in APA 7 throughout (in-text and list). At the end, add one AI statement: either specify how generative AI was used (from the options) or state it was not used.

We're Open