ArticleBMJ public health2025
Social prescribing services for patients with musculoskeletal conditions compared with other long-term health conditions in the UK: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: To examine the profile of social prescribing (SP) services for patients with long-term conditions (LTCs) and the extent to which equality and benefits of SP services are available to patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions and those with other LTCs. Methods: This study used routine data from Access Elemental (2017-2022), the most widely used SP software platform in the UK. Our analytical sample was restricted to 4943 patients with LTCs. We used heat maps to map process information about SP services and conducted logistic regression analyses. Results: The top reason for SP referrals for patients with MSK conditions was pain management, while for other LTCs it was to promote nutrition and diet, support emotional well-being and increase social connectedness and support. However, the top interventions for managing MSK conditions were similar to those prescribed for patients with all other LTCs, targeting activities around promoting diet and nutrition, mental health, physical activity, specific illness support, social connectedness and support. We found that compared with people with no MSK conditions and being referred via non-medical routes, those living with MSK conditions and patients who received referrals from medical centres had lower odds of receiving SP services and having their needs met. Patients living in less deprived areas are more likely to receive SP and have their needs satisfied than those from more deprived neighbourhoods. Conclusions: SP services do appear to be reaching some patients with MSK conditions, but they are less likely than other patients with LTCs to receive referrals or have their needs met. This suggests that specialist guidance around supporting the needs of patients with MSK conditions through SP is warranted. Further research is also needed to identify whether the broad types of interventions being prescribed to patients with MSK conditions actually meet their initial, most common referral need of pain management.
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.