ArticleHealth promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice2026
Identifying social prescribing core outcomes using a Delphi approach: findings and future directions.
Article in Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although social prescribing is a growing global health and social movement, no Delphi studies have determined which outcomes are critical to assess. Our aim was to identify a core outcome set based on feedback from diverse user groups of people who could be affected by (e.g. adults ≥ 60 years) or who can affect (e.g. providers, researchers) social prescribing.
methodsFollowing standard guidelines for Delphi studies, we developed a two-round online survey with a focus on Canadian perspectives. We asked participants to rate 21 outcomes as "critical" (7-9 on a 9-point scale), "important but not critical" (4-6 points) or "not important" (1-3 points). We provide a subgroup description of findings from older adult/family and friend perspectives.
resultsRound 1 was completed by 74 people from 10 user groups and Round 2 by 52 people from eight user groups (70% retention). Ratings between rounds were generally consistent. Seven outcomes met the "critical" threshold. No outcomes were excluded. Critical outcomes focused on mental health, physical and social functioning, and wellbeing. Participants commented on environmental (e.g. resources, care delivery) and equity factors.
conclusionThis study identified seven critical outcomes to consider in evaluations of social prescribing research and interventions. Future investigations should investigate how contextual and personal factors might influence outcomes and identify specific instruments (e.g. questionnaires, performance-based tests) to assess each outcome. Identification of outcomes is a continuous process, requiring regular updates as results may change due the ongoing evolution of social prescribing and other factors.
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.