ArticlePloS one2024
"You don't get side effects from social prescribing"-A qualitative study exploring community pharmacists' attitudes to social prescribing.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Harms and Negative or Unintended Consequences of Social Prescribing: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The severity of fatigue, daytime sleepiness, and health-related quality of life, and their impact among community pharmacists in Malaysia.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Barriers and enablers to pharmacist involvement in social prescribing: a protocol for a systematic review of qualitative studies.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Inclusive and effective teaching of Nature-Based Social Prescribing for allied health professional students within digital environments.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSocial prescribing is an approach that enables the referral of patients to non-clinical support and places a focus on holistic care. This study explored views of community pharmacists regarding social prescribing in pharmacies. STUDY
designA qualitative phenomenological approach was used.
methodsA convenience sample of eleven community pharmacists from Northern England were recruited via social media (Twitter, Facebook) and took part in a semi-structured, one-to-one qualitative interviews that asked about their knowledge of social prescribing, the advantages of community pharmacist involvement and any barriers they predicted to its implementation. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.
resultsThe sample included largely male pharmacists (63.3%) with less than five years' experience (45.5%) and included pharmacists working as employees (63.6%), locums (27.3%) and owners (9%) in both chain (36%) and independent stores (54.5%). The main findings indicate an enthusiasm for but limited understanding of social prescribing. Factors which appeared to influence involvement were training requirements and time available to complete an additional service in busy pharmacies. Opportunities centred on the broader pharmacy team's role to optimise health outcomes.
conclusionsThe findings indicate pharmacists may be an underused resource due to a poor understanding of the full scale and scope of social prescribing beyond health promotion, lifestyle interventions. Further work is needed to explore the transferability of the findings to the broader pharmacy workforce to understand how social prescribing can be positioned within pharmacy practice.
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.