Observational studyBMC primary care2025
Assessing the implementation and impact of a social prescribing protocol in primary care.
Observational study in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Is social prescribing feasible in Türkiye? Young family doctors' perspectives: a focus group study.BMC primary care · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundSocial prescribing allows clinicians to refer people to resources or activities in their community to improve their abilities and health. Implementation of social prescribing is growing. However, there is not enough evidence on several related issues. The aim of study was to analyse the implementation of the asset-based model in the primary care teams in Aragón and to describe the profile of people who benefit most and are most satisfied with social prescribing.
methodsIt is an analytical observational study in the 123 primary healthcare teams of Aragon from September2018 to December2022. The data were obtained from Electronical Health Record, checked and cleaned. A descriptive analysis was performed for qualitative and mean and standard deviation for quantitative variables. To analyse the associations between attendance, satisfaction, and improvement with all variables, several analyses were conducted using different methods. Finally, a cluster analysis was developed with the most benefited and satisfied people.
resultsDuring the study period, 2,735 asset recommendations were made to 2,578 different people and 1,050 follow-ups to 552. There was an increase in the use of the protocol over time, except during the COVID pandemic. Most recommendations were made to women (73.3%-2,006). The average age was 65. There were more referrals in the smallest places (3.11 referrals/1000inhabitants). The most frequent linked health issues were psychological problems (572 - 20.9%). Physical skills were the abilities that professionals most tried to promote (28.4-1,709). In the follow-ups, the 81.4%(373) reported attending to the asset regularly. There were differences according to age and health problems. The average of improvement was 3.87/5 with differences by age, municipality size and health problems. For satisfaction, the average was 4.57/5 with differences by age and health problems. The lowest level of improvement and satisfaction was found for social problems. The cluster analysis highlighted several groups. Three profiles were distinguished in terms of high improvement and four of high satisfaction. In both cases, the variables related to areas for enhancement primarily defined the profiles.
conclusionsIt is necessary to continue research with strong methodological and complementary approaches. This manuscript is optimistic about the use and impact of the social prescription in primary health care.
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.