Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38279096›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

Theories used to develop or evaluate social prescribing in studies: a scoping review.

Sinah Evers, Kerryn Husk, Hendrik Napierala, Lydia Wendt, Ansgar Gerhardus

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Digital social prescribing: a concept analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Social prescribing needs and priorities of older adults in Canada: a qualitative analysis.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors.

Sinah EversDepartment of Health Services Research, Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, University of Bremen, Grazer Straße 4, Bremen, 28359, Germany. sinah.evers@uni-bremen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5399-3355
Kerryn HuskNIHR ARC South West Peninsula (PenARC), Faculty of Health, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5674-8673
Hendrik NapieralaCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1542-2877
Lydia WendtDepartment of Health Services Research, Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, University of Bremen, Grazer Straße 4, Bremen, 28359, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-7373-0294
Ansgar GerhardusDepartment of Health Services Research, Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, University of Bremen, Grazer Straße 4, Bremen, 28359, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3637-7419

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis scoping review aims to provide an overview of how theories were used in the development or evaluation of social prescribing (SP) intervention studies.

backgroundSP describes a patient pathway where general practitioners (GPs) connect patients with community activities through referrals to link workers. This review seeks to understand the explanations provided for the outcomes and implementation process of SP. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies using a defined theory to develop or evaluate a specific SP intervention in primary care and the community sector.

methodsThis scoping review was conducted in accordance with JBI methodology. The following databases were searched on 8

resultsThe search resulted in 4240 reports, of which 18 were included in the scoping review. Of these, 16 were conducted in the UK, one in Canada and one in Australia. The majority of reports employed a qualitative approach (11/18). Three were study protocols. 11 distinct theories were applied to explain outcomes (4 theories), differences in outcomes (3 theories), and the implementation of the intervention (4 theories). In terms of practical application, the identified theories were predominantly used to explain and understand qualitative findings. Only one theory was used to define variables for hypothesis testing. All theories were used for the evaluation and none for the development of SP.

conclusionThe theories influenced which outcomes the evaluation assessed, which causal pathway was expected to generate these outcomes, and which methodological approaches were used. All three groups of theories that were identified focus on relevant aspects of SP: fostering positive patient/community outcomes, addressing inequalities by considering the context of someone's individual circumstances, and successfully implementing SP by collaboratively working across professions and institutional boundaries. Additional insight is required regarding the optimal use of theories in practical applications.

Indexed as

Social SupportAustraliaCanadaHumansCommunityHealth care researchPrimary careSocial prescribingSocial problemsTheories

Identifiers

PMID38279096
PMCPMC10821232

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.