ArticleCommunity mental health journal2026
Service User Experiences and Perspectives of Social Prescribing Services for Mental Health.
Article in Community mental health journal, 2026. 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.
- Measuring the iceberg: complex lives, invisible metrics, and lived experience in social prescribing.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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To explore service user experiences and perspectives of social prescribing for mental health and to develop theoretically informed strategies to optimise their experience. This qualitative study utilises semi-structured interviews with participants recruited via gatekeepers across social prescribing services in England and Wales. A topic guide, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the COM-B model of behaviour change, was used to structure interviews. Data were analysed using Thematic Framework Analysis guided by the TDF. A total of eighteen service users participated in this research. Ten were aware of social prescribing and could provide an accurate explanation of what it is; three recognised the term but could not explain the concept; and five had no prior knowledge, despite accessing social prescribing services. Overall, awareness of social prescribing, its benefits for mental health, and service accessibility were limited and identified as key areas for improvement. Eleven theoretical domains identified related to engagement with social prescribing services for mental health. Twenty-one analytical themes were generated across the eleven domains. Of these themes, seven suggested changes to the current provision, with the remaining fourteen providing recommendations for future services. Findings advance the field of social prescribing for mental health by providing insight into the experiences and perceptions of service users, underpinned by a robust behavioural framework analysis to identify behavioural determinants.
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.