ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2025
Examining the social prescription process: Barriers, facilitators, and the role of health information technology.
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.
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.
- Digital social prescribing: a concept analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
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
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
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.