What this is, and where it comes from

Purpose

Social prescribing in Canada has grown quickly and unevenly. Programs differ in design, population, workforce, and how they connect with health and community systems. That variation is a strength, and it makes comparison and synthesis hard. This toolkit gives programs a shared structure for evaluation while leaving room for local adaptation, so that local learning, cross-site comparison, and reporting can draw on the same data.

How it was built

The framework organizes measurement across two levels and ten domains. No indicator is ranked above another; instead, each carries an estimate of measurement burden so programs can match what they collect to their capacity and to what is reasonable to ask of participants. It was shaped by three co-design programs in British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario, whose routine evaluation practices informed how each domain is presented here. Those programs are used as general guidance. This toolkit does not reproduce their internal forms or data.

A resource, not a standard

This is a shared resource, not a mandate. It exists to make evaluation easier and more comparable, not to tell any program what it must collect. You choose the domains and indicators that answer your own questions and that matter to your mission, your funders, and your community. A small program can start with a handful of low-burden items; a research-capable site can add validated scales and qualitative methods. Both are measuring against the same framework.

Models of delivery

The framework centres a link-worker pathway: identify, refer, connect, and follow up. Link working is a set of activities rather than a single job title. In some programs a named link worker carries the work; in embedded and integrated-care models it is shared across a care team. The domains and indicators are written to fit either arrangement, so you describe how the work happens in your setting and measure it as it runs.

Making the case to funders and policymakers

Evaluation is also an argument. Funders and policymakers tend to ask three things: who you reach, what changes for them, and what it costs relative to that change. The framework is built so you can answer all three. Reach and equity come from the program-level domains; participant change comes from the outcome domains; value and sustainability sit in Domain 1.4. Numbers carry the scale of the work, and stories carry its meaning, so pair a few significant-change accounts with your reach and outcome figures when you report. Even a short, well-structured evaluation gives a funder something concrete to stand on.

About validated tools and licensing

Each tool page cites a primary source. Where an instrument is in the public domain or free to use, its question wording and scoring are shown and can be exported through the Evaluation Tool Builder. Where an instrument is copyrighted or requires registration, we describe it, explain its scoring at a general level, and link to the official source. Programs are responsible for obtaining the official version and any required permission before use.

Data and privacy

Registering a site stores the information you enter so it can appear on the public map once approved. Only approved sites are shown publicly. You control your own site profile and can edit or remove it. The intake, follow-up, and interview tools generate documents in your browser; the toolkit does not collect participant-level data.

Partners & acknowledgements

This toolkit is coordinated through the Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing, an initiative of the Canadian Red Cross. It builds on the work of provincial partners who co-designed the framework and tested it with the programs they support. The work is funded through the Public Health Agency of Canada's Healthy Canadians and Communities Fund.

Provincial and partner logos can be added in place of the initials above (drop image files in assets/partners/ and swap the placeholder for an <img>).

Key references

• Hughes ME, Waite LJ, Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT. A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys. Research on Aging. 2004;26(6):655–672. doi:10.1177/0164027504268574
• Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Löwe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(10):1092–1097. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092
• Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW. The PHQ-9. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606–613. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x
• Lubben J, et al. Performance of an abbreviated version of the Lubben Social Network Scale. The Gerontologist. 2006;46(4):503–513. doi:10.1093/geront/46.4.503
• Coast J, et al. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(5):874–882. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.05.015
• Rockwood K, et al. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ. 2005;173(5):489–495. doi:10.1503/cmaj.050051
• Pampalon R, Hamel D, Gamache P, Raymond G. A deprivation index for health planning in Canada. Chronic Dis Can. 2009;29(4):178–191.
• Damschroder LJ, et al. The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Implement Sci. 2022;17:75. doi:10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0
• Davies R, Dart J. The 'Most Significant Change' (MSC) Technique: A Guide to Its Use. 2005.