ArticleBMJ public health2026
Accessibility and use of social prescribing interventions by minority ethnic groups in the United Kingdom: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ public health, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To map existing literature on the accessibility and use of social prescribing interventions/programmes by people from minority ethnic groups in the United Kingdom (UK). Design: A scoping review guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. Data sources: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods and grey literature sources examining social prescribing among minority ethnic groups in the UK. Eligibility criteria: Included sources focused on adults from minority ethnic groups who had accessed, been referred to or attempted to access any social prescribing intervention in the UK. Results: A total of 17 papers were included. Common types of social prescribing included advice and information, arts and culture, nature-based activities and physical activity. Cultural relevance, tailored interventions, strong community links and link worker support facilitated engagement. Barriers included language issues, limited awareness, logistical challenges and cultural stigma. Demographic reporting was often inconsistent, with few studies specifying which services were accessed by different ethnic groups, limiting understanding of impact and equity. Conclusions: This review highlights gaps in social prescribing research, emphasising the need for better understanding of how culturally tailored approaches enhance use, accessibility and effectiveness. Better demographic reporting and more research into culturally relevant approaches are needed. This will support the development of inclusive, effective social prescribing services that address the needs of diverse populations.
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.