Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41115337›Full record

ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2025

Examining the social prescription process: Barriers, facilitators, and the role of health information technology.

David Haynes, Maya Wedlow, Kevin Gilliam, Rebekah Pratt, Timothy J Beebe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Digital social prescribing: a concept analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

David HaynesInstitute for Health Informatics, Medical School, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, United States. Electronic address: dahaynes@umn.edu.
Maya WedlowHealth Policy and Management Division, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, United States. Electronic address: wedlo002@umn.edu.
Kevin GilliamNorthPoint Health and Wellness Center, Minnesota, United States. Electronic address: Kevin.Gilliam@hennepin.us.
Rebekah PrattDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, Medical School, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, United States. Electronic address: rjpratt@umn.edu.
Timothy J BeebeHealth Policy and Management Division, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, United States. Electronic address: beebe026@umn.edu.

Funding

ConnectedNest: a digital platform connecting individuals with cancer to social careR42CA295106 · NCI · XANTHOSHEALTH, INC. · PI HAYNES, DAVID A · 2024 to 2025
$1.9M
NCI NIH HHS R42 CA295106
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social, economic, and environmental conditions are known to impact up to 50 % of an individual's health. The process of identifying needs and referring individuals to resources is social prescribing. While technologies have been developed, a major barrier is that the social prescription process is poorly understood. Few healthcare systems have tools or workflows that systematically collect individual needs and provide reliable referrals to Community-Based Organizations (CBOs). The purpose of this research is to understand the existing process of a healthcare system and implement a digital health tool to assess its alignment with the healthcare system. We conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with clinical teams (i.e., doctors, nurses, social workers, and administrators) to understand the barriers and facilitators for Health Information Technology (HIT) and social care referrals. We also piloted a HIT, Smart Community Health, with 21 recruited participants from the healthcare system. Our results show that barriers exist at the individual level, healthcare system level, and across CBOs. Healthcare team members used interpersonal communication, championing, and person-centered care to facilitate social care referrals to CBOs. Lastly, the role of HIT remains ambiguous; participants stated that there would be both positive and negative aspects of integrating technology within this process. When we piloted the HIT with 21 participants, we found that 61 % of patients were able to connect with CBOs, but only 26 % were able to get resources. This indicates that there are still significant challenges to getting resources to individuals with needs.

Indexed as

Medical InformaticsAdultFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchReferral and ConsultationHealth information technologyHealth related social needsSocial determinants of healthSocial prescription

Identifiers

PMID41115337
PMCPMC12706840

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.