ArticleNature health2026
The impact of social prescribing on well-being outcomes in a nationwide analysis.
Article in Nature health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of Baseline Depressive Tendency with Post-Counseling Clinical Status in Patients with Thymoma-Associated Myasthenia Gravis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Developing a digital ecological momentary assessment tool for 'real time' evaluation in implementation science: testing through evaluation of a novel digital social prescribing intervention.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Social prescribing (SP) is growing rapidly in the UK and across the world. However, there remains a lack of robust quantitative evidence on its impacts. Here we aim to provide a large-scale national analysis of the well-being impacts of SP in the UK, drawing pre-post data from large-scale longitudinal administrative records. Well-being outcomes were measured using the short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale and the Office for National Statistics well-being scale, including happiness, anxiety, life satisfaction and sense of life being worthwhile. Data were analysed using Bayesian growth curve modelling. Our findings demonstrate consistent and sizeable improvements across different well-being domains in the 1-6 months following initial referral to SP. Specifically, we observed a 3.31-point increase in the short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (95% highest density interval (HDI) 3.26 to 3.37), a 1.59-point increase in happiness (95% HDI 1.55 to 1.63), a 1.57-point increase in life satisfaction (95% HDI 1.54 to 1.61), a 1.4-point increase in sense of life being worthwhile (95% HDI 1.36 to 1.43) and a 1.45-point decrease in anxiety (95% HDI -1.49 to -1.41). The increase in life satisfaction is equivalent to a conservative monetary estimate of £4,252 over a mean period of 2.5 months (2019 prices), representing a return on investment of £9 (per £1 invested). These results proved robust across multiple sensitivity analyses. We found little evidence that the well-being changes differ across sociodemographic groups, indicating a broad applicability of SP interventions.
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.