Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall	Thank you for the opportunity to read this manuscript. This manuscript provides a lot of information on the social prescribing.
	This manuscript’s insight regarding reasons for social prescribing, referrals for social prescribing, and the outcomes associated with social prescribing are very informative in explaining the process and outcomes.
	I do have a few comments which I believe could strengthen the argument and the clarity of the manuscript.
Abstract	Abstract does a good job of introducing the study and why there is a need to study social prescribing, as well as addressing the need for a unified strategy in measuring social prescribing outcomes.
Introduction	The introductions first few paragraphs do a great job describing social prescribing to readers who might be less familiar with the practice and the process.
	p. 2, line 46. What is a “link worker”? I know that this is followed by the fact that it is usually a healthcare worker.
	pp. 2 & 3, lines 96-100. This sentence is a little long and confusing to follow all the way through. It could read better if the thought was broken up into two sentences.
Materials and Methods	I think when it comes to the multimodal distribution of the survey, the argument could be strengthened explaining why both were used in the methods. It makes sense, but why was the multimodal distribution chosen?
Results	p. 9, Fig. 1. While I know this will be published digitally, for those who might prefer to print out copies and read on a hard copy, the addition of some sort of striping or other patterns could benefit this figure if that individual was using a black and white printer.
	p. 10, Table 6. Should the comments credited to “#47” and “#86” instead be for “P47” and “P86” to match all other response credits?
Discussion	In the limitations, this was where my question about why multimodal was used comes up. Were there any steps to attempt to either identify and remove or prevent analysis of multiple responses from the same service? While explaining the choice of multimodal does not eliminate this limitation, it at least provides it some context.

Author Response

Please see attached for our response to Reviewer 1

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study examined the evaluation practices of social prescribing (SP) services in Ireland. The researchers conducted a survey among staff involved in delivering and managing SP services. The results showed that all respondents agreed on the importance of measuring SP outcomes. The most frequently measured outcomes were health and wellbeing, as well as loneliness. Satisfaction of healthcare professionals referring to SP was the least frequently measured outcome. The Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale was the most commonly used measurement tool. However, there was a lack of standardized measures for some outcomes, such as physical activity. In open-ended questions, respondents highlighted the need for a national strategy and the use of both qualitative and quantitative outcome measures to capture the complexity of SP.

The manuscript is basically clear and relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner.

The cited references are mostly recent publications (within the last 5 years) and relevant.

The hypothesis of the research was not so clear, and the challenges faced in the area were not strongly highlighted? Thus, the importance of the research seemed not stated clearly.

The survey being distributed via two methods sounds interesting and convenient. However, can the respondents attending the All-Ire- 137 land Social Prescribing Network (AISPN) conference in Ireland in 2022 represent the expected respondents?

The figure 1 can be improved.

Eighty-six surveys were completed, 84 of which were included in the final analysis. What about the 2 of which were excluded?

Only one person from each service should complete the survey. I wonder which person in a certain service should complete the survey. Does the role or demographic characteristics of the person completing a survey have an impact on the survey results?

The respondents were not required to supply the name of their organisation. How the authors knew all the organisations were included?

Can the research results provided any reference for other countries?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Basically ok.

Author Response

Please see attached response to Reviewer 2

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf