ArticleBJGP open2025
Factors associated with link workers considering leaving their role: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in BJGP open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring General Practice Nurses' Experiences of an Intervention to Support Social Connectedness Among Older Adults: A Qualitative Descriptive Study.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Article
- Embedding social prescribing in primary care in England and Scotland: a qualitative study of experiences, roles, challenges, and sustainability.The Lancet. Primary care · 2026Article
- Understanding the retention and support needs of UK first contact practitioner physiotherapists in primary care; a realist review.BMC primary care · 2026Review
- Barriers and facilitators to implementing social prescribing in child and adolescent mental health services: a qualitative analysis using the consolidated framework for implementation research.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Entering a liminal state when becoming a social prescribing link worker and how it affects retention: findings from a UK qualitative study.Primary health care research & development · 2025Article
- Stakeholder understanding of social prescribing in England: a qualitative study in primary care.BMC primary care · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocial prescribing (SP) link workers (LWs) listen to patients' concerns and difficulties, and connect them to relevant community assets (groups, organisations, or charities) that can help with their non-medical issues (for example, loneliness, debt, housing). LW retention is key to sustaining SP within primary care.
aimTo examine occupational self-efficacy, job discrepancy, and other factors as potential predictors of LWs' intentions to leave or remain in their posts. DESIGN &
settingCross-sectional survey involving LWs from the United Kingdom.
methodAn online questionnaire was distributed via SP-related organisations. Questions were on the following: (a) intention to leave the role; (b) demographics; and (c) role experience, including occupational self-efficacy and discrepancy between expectations and reality of the job. Questions were mainly closed, although some allowed LWs to provide a written response. Logistic regression models were fitted to identify predictors, and content analysis used to categorise open-ended responses.
resultsIn total, 342 questionnaire responses were included in the analysis. Higher job discrepancy was associated with past (odds ratio [OR] per 30 unit
conclusionFindings highlight factors influencing LW retention, offering a foundation for targeted interventions, which could include clearer communication about the role during recruitment, and adjusting job descriptions and support when required.
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.