ArticleBMJ open2022
Exploring how and why social prescribing evaluations work: a realist review.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Social Prescribing for Older Adults: An Evidence and Gap Map.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Review
- Social prescribing for refugee populations: a rapid realist review of international evidence.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Conceptualization and implementation of community social prescribing evaluation: a case study of the co-designedFrontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Building and evaluating a social prescribing program for carer-employees: an intervention study.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Identifying social prescribing core outcomes using a Delphi approach: findings and future directions.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2026Article
- Changes in mental health during participation in Art Pharmacy: a longitudinal study of a U.S. arts-based social prescribing program.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Improving local authority financial support services for users with complex health needs: a mixed-method economic evaluation of Social Navigators in South Tyneside, UK.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Interrogating green social prescribing in South Wales; A multi-stakeholder qualitative exploration.PloS one · 2025Article
- Development and preliminary validation of the South Wales Social Well-being Scale (SWSWBS).BMC public health · 2024Article
- Towards an integrative approach of healthcare: implementing positive health in three cases in the Netherlands.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Exploration of Evaluation Practices in Social Prescribing Services in Ireland: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Review
- Current Trends and Future Directions in Urban Social Prescribing.Current environmental health reports · 2023Review
- World Cafés as a participatory approach to understanding research agendas in primary care with underserved communities: reflections, challenges and lessons learned.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Developing a research agenda for social prescribing in the UK using lessons from the US.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022Article
- Integrating Non-Clinical Supports into Care: A Systematic Review of Social Prescribing Referral Pathways for Mental Health, Wellbeing, and Psychosocial Improvement.International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe evidence base for social prescribing is inconclusive, and evaluations have been criticised for lacking rigour. This realist review sought to understand how and why social prescribing evaluations work or do not work. Findings from this review will contribute to the development of an evidence-based evaluation framework and reporting standards for social prescribing.
designA realist review. DATA SOURCES: ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus Online, Social Care Online, Web of Science and grey literature. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Documents reporting on social prescribing evaluations using any methods, published between 1998 and 2020 were included. Documents not reporting findings or lacking detail on methods for data collection and outcomes were excluded. ANALYSIS: Included documents were segregated into subcases based on methodology. Data relating to context, mechanisms and outcomes and the programme theory were extracted and context-mechanism-outcome configurations were developed. Meta-inferences were drawn from all subcases to refine the programme theory.
results83 documents contributed to analysis. Generally, studies lacked in-depth descriptions of the methods and evaluation processes employed. A cyclical process of social prescribing evaluation was identified, involving preparation, conducting the study and interpretation. The analysis found that coproduction, alignment, research agency, sequential mixed-methods design and integration of findings all contributed to the development of an acceptable, high-quality social prescribing evaluation design. Context-mechanism-outcome configurations relating to these themes are reported.
conclusionsTo develop the social prescribing evidence base and address gaps in our knowledge about the impact of social prescribing and how it works, evaluations must be high quality and acceptable to stakeholders. Development of an evaluation framework and reporting standards drawing on the findings of this realist review will support this aim. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020183065.
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.