ArticleBMC primary care2025
Consensus-based framework for assessing social prescribing schemes in primary healthcare.
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 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.
- Social prescribing interventions in response to older adults' needs in community settings - nurses' perspectives: a qualitative study.Journal of research in nursing : JRN · 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 Schemes (SPS) incorporate community-based activities (Health Assets, HAs) into primary healthcare (PHC) to address social determinants of health and enhance well-being. Structured evaluation frameworks are needed to ensure equity, accessibility, and measurable outcomes. This study aimed to develop a framework to assess SPS in the Spanish public healthcare system using key stakeholder input.
methodsA mixed-method approach was applied, including five nominal group discussions (NGDs) with 48 national stakeholders (public health officials, PHC teams, HA providers, and patients). Thematic analysis of NGD data identified key challenges and opportunities and with the literature review was the foundation of a two-round Delphi survey with 130 participants. The Delphi process refined 116 initial criteria across three domains (structure, process, outcomes), guided by Donabedian’s quality model.
resultsThe final model contained 91 criteria: 41 structural criteria focused on equity, accessibility, and validation of HAs; 36 process criteria highlighted patient consent, collaboration between PHC teams and HA providers, and adherence tracking; 14 outcome criteria emphasized improvements in quality of life, autonomy, and reduced healthcare use. Key barriers included information health system fragmentation, resource limitations, and regional disparities, emphasizing the need for cross-sector collaboration.
conclusionsThis framework prioritizes equity and patient-centred approaches, emphasizing the value of SPS in PHC. Policy and research efforts should focus on addressing barriers and scaling SPS to strengthen integration and improve population health.
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.