ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Social prescribing as a tool for integrated care-insights from a cross-sectional study with German general practitioners.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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.
- General practitioners' awareness, use, and perceptions of social prescribing in Austria.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
Introduction: Social prescribing (SP), a patient-centered approach integrating non-medical interventions into primary care to address social determinants of health, is relatively unknown in Germany. This study explores German general practitioners' (GPs) awareness and perspectives on SP to assess its potential integration into healthcare. Methods: A cross-sectional survey among German GPs evaluated their familiarity with SP, perceived effectiveness, willingness to adopt it, and potential barriers to implementation. Surveys were analyzed using descriptive and interferential statistics. With a response rate of 7.9% 101 questionnaires were completed. Results: Most GPs were unfamiliar with the term SP, yet the majority expressed willingness to adopt it and some had already engaged in SP-related activities, even if unknowingly. GPs often encountered social issues such as mental strain, workplace-related stress, caregiving for relatives, and loneliness, which they believed could be effectively addressed through SP. SP usage significantly influenced perceived benefits and barriers, including the lack of time during consultations, lack of knowledge about referral structures and funding additional workforce. Almost all viewed it as beneficial for improving patient care, with most preferring outsourcing SP. GPs practicing in towns with a population under 5,000 were significantly more likely to adopt SP compared to the broader sample. Discussion/conclusion: Participating GPs are largely supportive of SP and believe it has the potential to improve patient outcomes and reduce strain on the healthcare system, but lack practical implementation. We believe that future initiatives should focus on educating healthcare providers and integrating SP into primary care policies to maximize its impact on healthcare sustainability and equity.
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.