Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34159848›Full record

SynthesisPerspectives in public health2021

Understanding loneliness: a systematic review of the impact of social prescribing initiatives on loneliness.

G Y Reinhardt, D Vidovic, C Hammerton

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Perspectives in public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
54.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

62 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Pooled it
  4. Experiences of Loneliness Across the Lifespan: A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Studies.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Can Social Prescribing Foster Individual and Community Well-Being? A Systematic Review of the Evidence.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Loneliness and Mental Wellbeing in People With Inherited Macular Disease.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

G Y ReinhardtDepartment of Government, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, Essex, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2120-5529
D VidovicUniversity of Essex, Colchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3741-2896
C HammertonUniversity of Essex, Colchester, UK.
University of Essex · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe aim of this systematic literature review is to assess the impact of social prescribing (SP) programmes on loneliness among participants and the population.

methodsWe followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to search EBSCOHost (CINAHL Complete, eBook Collection, E-Journals, MEDLINE with Full Text, Open Dissertations, PsycARTICLES, and PsycINFO), UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Web of Science Core Collection, and grey literature. We included studies measuring the effectiveness and impact of SP programmes in terms of loneliness. We excluded systematic reviews and studies without evaluations. Due to the absence of confidence intervals and the low number of studies, we conduct no meta-analysis.

resultsFrom 4415 unique citations, nine articles met the inclusion criteria. The studies do not use uniform measures or randomised samples. All nine studies report positive individual impacts; three report reductions in general practitioner (GP), A&E, social worker, or inpatient/outpatient services; and one shows that belonging to a group reduces loneliness and healthcare usage.

conclusionThe findings of this systematic review indicate that individuals and service providers view SP as a helpful tool to address loneliness. However, evidence variability and the small number of studies make it difficult to draw a conclusion on the extent of the impact and the pathways to achieving positive change. More research is needed into the impact of SP programmes on participants, populations, and communities in terms of loneliness, isolation, and connectedness, especially in light of the surge in SP activity as a key part of pandemic response.

Indexed as

LonelinessPrescriptionsSocial ParticipationHumansProgram Evaluationevaluationlonelinesspublic healthsocial model of healthsocial prescribingwellbeing

Identifiers

PMID34159848
PMCPMC8295963
OpenAlexW3093771799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.