Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2000
A randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a referrals facilitator between primary care and the voluntary sector.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
62 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 148 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health Care Utilization Following Interventions to Improve Social Well-Being: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- Social prescribing outcomes: a mapping review of the evidence from 13 countries to identify key common outcomes.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Can Social Prescribing Foster Individual and Community Well-Being? A Systematic Review of the Evidence.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence.BMJ open · 2017Pooled it
- On-site mental health workers delivering psychological therapy and psychosocial interventions to patients in primary care: effects on the professional practice of primary care providers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009Pooled it
- Primary care mental health workers: models of working and evidence of effectiveness.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002Pooled it
- A Randomized Controlled Trial of Social Prescribing: Comparing a Comprehensive Navigation Model With Signposting.Annals of family medicine · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Effectiveness of Community-Links Practitioners in Areas of High Socioeconomic Deprivation.Annals of family medicine · 2019Trial
- Aligning everyday life priorities with people's self-management support networks: an exploration of the work and implementation of a needs-led telephone support system.BMC health services research · 2014Trial
- Cluster randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of primary care mental health workers.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2007Trial
- Harms and Negative or Unintended Consequences of Social Prescribing: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Linking Social Prescribing and Lifestyle RedesignCanadian journal of occupational therapy. Revue canadienne d'ergotherapie · 2026Article
- Identifying key outcomes for social prescribing research in the US: a Delphi method study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The impact of social prescribing on well-being outcomes in a nationwide analysis.Nature health · 2026Article
- Impact of the rollout of the national social prescribing link worker programme on population outcomes: evidence from a repeated cross-sectional survey.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Community pharmacist involvement in social prescribing for mental health: a qualitative study.Primary health care research & development · 2024Article
- Athletic Trainers' Observations of Social Determinants of Health in the Collegiate Setting: A Card Study.Journal of athletic training · 2024Observational
- Article
2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare outcome and resource utilisation among patients referred to the Amalthea Project, a liaison organisation that facilitates contact between voluntary organisations and patients in primary care, with patients receiving routine general practitioner care.
designRandomised controlled trial with follow up at one and four months.
setting26 general practices in Avon.
participants161 patients identified by their general practitioner as having psychosocial problems.
main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were psychological wellbeing (assessed with the hospital anxiety and depression scale) and social support (assessed using the Duke-UNC functional social support questionnaire). Secondary outcomes were quality of life measures (the Dartmouth COOP/WONCA functional health assessment charts and the delighted-terrible faces scale), cost of contacts with the primary healthcare team and Amalthea Project, cost of prescribing in primary care, and cost of referrals to other agencies, over four months.
resultsThe Amalthea group showed significantly greater improvements in anxiety (average difference between groups after adjustment for baseline -1.9, 95% confidence interval -3.0 to -0.7), other emotional feelings (average adjusted difference -0.5, -0.8 to -0.2), ability to carry out everyday activities (-0.5, -0.8 to -0.2), feelings about general health (-0.4, -0.7 to -0.1), and quality of life (-0.5, -0.9 to -0.1). No difference was detected in depression or perceived social support. The mean cost was significantly greater in the Amalthea arm than the general practitioner care arm ( pound153 v pound133, P=0. 025).
conclusionReferral to the Amalthea Project and subsequent contact with the voluntary sector results in clinically important benefits compared with usual general practitioner care in managing psychosocial problems, but at a higher cost.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.