ArticleBMC primary care2025
Stakeholder understanding of social prescribing in England: a qualitative study in primary care.
Article 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Harms and Negative or Unintended Consequences of Social Prescribing: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Are participants with disability referred for social prescribing? Findings from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Acceptability of a social prescribing program (REDE D+) for self-care and health literacy among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus-a qualitative study.Frontiers in public health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSocial prescribing (SP) seeks to support patients' wider needs by connecting them to non-medical community resources. Link workers (LWs) facilitate SP's delivery across the National Health Service (NHS) in England. As a concept, SP may be perceived in different ways by various stakeholders. This study set out to explore how SP is understood among healthcare professionals (HCPs), voluntary and community sector (VCS) representatives, LWs, and patients (Ps) in England.
methodsA secondary qualitative analysis was conducted using interview data from a realist evaluation on the implementation of LWs in primary care. Interview data from 106 participants (HCPs, VCS representatives, LWs, Ps), across seven sites in England, were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsAnalysis resulted in 127 codes. These were clustered into the following themes: (1) the need for system optimisation, (2) SP as a tool for personal empowerment, (3) SP's broad and inclusive nature, (4) community engagement through LWs, and (5) a holistic approach to well-being. These themes highlight SP's potential as an integrated and empowering ecosystem; requiring effective collaboration and clearer communication among stakeholders to enhance understanding of its purpose, streamline referral processes, and align expectations for greater impact. Understanding of SP could be related to five broad questions around how, who, what, where, and why; the themes produced from the analysis aligned with these questions, each exploring different dimensions of SP. Through this, we developed the 5Ws Framework, which is outlined in the paper.
conclusionsSP is not a standalone intervention; it is a complex system that requires optimisation and balance across its elements. Its effectiveness as an integrated empowerment ecosystem depends on addressing all facets of the 5Ws-how, who, what, where, and why it operates-engaging the right stakeholders, clearly defining its scope, and implementing it appropriately. Policymakers and commissioners could use the 5Ws Framework to guide decision-making, align health system priorities, and ensure the effective integration of SP within primary 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.