Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36060831›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of integrated care

Social Prescribing: Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Psychosocial Community Referral Interventions in Primary Care.

Hendrik Napierala, Karen Krüger, Doreen Kuschick, Christoph Heintze, Wolfram J Herrmann, Felix Holzinger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of integrated care. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 7 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.

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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Assessing Unmet Social Needs in Multiple Sclerosis Care in Australia: A Qualitative Assessment of Feasibility, Barriers and Enablers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Hendrik NapieralaCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1542-2877
Karen KrügerCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6331-8727
Doreen KuschickCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany.
Christoph HeintzeCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2179-8192
Wolfram J HerrmannCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9505-4911
Felix HolzingerCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8400-7757

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Social prescribing (SP) aims to provide targeted psychosocial support and close the gap between medical and non-medical services. This review assesses the effectiveness of community-based SP interventions. Methods: We performed a systematic review and qualitative synthesis of interventional studies of community referral interventions focused on facilitating psychosocial support. We considered health-related endpoints, other patient reported outcomes, or health care utilization. Six databases, grey literature, and additional trials registers were searched. Results were screened in a two-step process, followed by data extraction, each by two independent reviewers. If data permitted such, effect sizes were calculated. Risk of bias was assessed with the EPHPP and the Cochrane RoB2 tools. Results: We identified 68 reports from 53 different projects, three were controlled studies. Uncontrolled studies with shorter time frames frequently reported positive effects. This could largely not be seen in controlled settings and for longer follow-up periods. Designs, populations, and outcomes evaluated were heterogeneous with high risk of bias for most studies. Discussion and conclusion: Current evidence suggests positive effects of SP on a variety of relevant endpoints. Due to quality deficits in the available studies, scope for conclusions concerning clinical relevance and sustainability is limited. Further methodologically rigorous controlled trials are needed.

Indexed as

community referral interventionintegrated caresocial prescribingsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36060831
PMCPMC9389950

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.