Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28389486›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2017

Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence.

Liz Bickerdike, Alison Booth, Paul M Wilson, Kate Farley, Kath Wright

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04336553 (Social Prescribing in Sweden), which is not on this map. Cited by 385 papers, 18 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
385citing papers in PubMed, 18 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04336553 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Social Prescribing in Sweden (SPiS)- An Interventional Research Project Evaluating a Swedish Model

TypeinterventionalSponsorUmeå UniversityRan2023 to 2025Enrolled220ConditionsLonelinessArmsSocial prescribing in Sweden (SPiS)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

385 citing papers in PubMed, 18 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Outcomes and instruments used in social prescribing: a modified umbrella review.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2024
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. A Systematic Review of Electronic Community Resource Referral Systems.American journal of preventive medicine · 2023
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

325 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Liz BickerdikeCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7830-4598
Alison BoothYork Trials Unit, University of York, York, UK.
Paul M WilsonAlliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2657-5780
Kate FarleySchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Kath WrightCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 12/5002/18
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesSocial prescribing is a way of linking patients in primary care with sources of support within the community to help improve their health and well-being. Social prescribing programmes are being widely promoted and adopted in the UK National Health Service and so we conducted a systematic review to assess the evidence for their effectiveness. SETTING/DATA SOURCES: Nine databases were searched from 2000 to January 2016 for studies conducted in the UK. Relevant reports and guidelines, websites and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies. All the searches were restricted to English language only.

participantsSystematic reviews and any published evaluation of programmes where patient referral was made from a primary care setting to a link worker or facilitator of social prescribing were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias for included studies was undertaken independently by two reviewers and a narrative synthesis was performed. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes of interest were any measures of health and well-being and/or usage of health services.

resultsWe included a total of 15 evaluations of social prescribing programmes. Most were small scale and limited by poor design and reporting. All were rated as a having a high risk of bias. Common design issues included a lack of comparative controls, short follow-up durations, a lack of standardised and validated measuring tools, missing data and a failure to consider potential confounding factors. Despite clear methodological shortcomings, most evaluations presented positive conclusions.

conclusionsSocial prescribing is being widely advocated and implemented but current evidence fails to provide sufficient detail to judge either success or value for money. If social prescribing is to realise its potential, future evaluations must be comparative by design and consider when, by whom, for whom, how well and at what cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO Registration: CRD42015023501.

Indexed as

ExercisePrescriptionsPrimary Health CareSocial SupportSocial WelfareSocial WorkHumansState MedicineUnited KingdomPRIMARY CARE

Identifiers

PMID28389486
PMCPMC5558801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.