Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42802874›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026

Changes in healthcare use and cost associated with referrals to social prescribing link workers in England: a matched case-control cohort study.

Anna Wilding, Luke Munford, Matt Sutton, Morgan Beeson, John Wildman, Stewart W Mercer, Efundem Agboraw, Paul Wilson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Anna WildingHealth Organisation, Policy and Economics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Luke MunfordHealth Organisation, Policy and Economics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Matt SuttonHealth Organisation, Policy and Economics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Morgan BeesonNewcastle University Business School, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
John WildmanFrederick Douglass Centre, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Stewart W MercerCentre for Population Health Studies, Usher Institute, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Efundem AgborawHealth Organisation, Policy and Economics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Paul WilsonHealth Organisation, Policy and Economics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Social prescribing primarily aims to address patients' non-clinical needs and increase the appropriateness of healthcare use. A major new national programme in England, introduced in 2019, has led to substantial increases in referrals to social prescribing link workers. Impacts on healthcare use and cost have not been examined. We aimed to address this. Methods: This case-control cohort study used anonymised electronic healthcare records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum dataset, which contains around 25% of the English population to examine healthcare use and costs up to 1 year post-referral. Calliper matching was used to identify five controls for each case based on age and sex, with one control patient selected within the same practice. We matched 168,699 patients with a referral to social prescribing between July 2019 and April 2022 to 1,302,443 non-referred patients. We used multivariable linear regression models to estimate effects on subsequent healthcare use and costs at three timepoints before referral (2 years, 1 year, 6 months) and two timepoints after referral (6 months, 1 year). Findings: Patients referred to social prescribing had 2.252 more contacts (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 2.089-2.414, 24% relative to mean) with primary and/or secondary care compared to non-referred patients in the first 6 months. This was likely driven by primary care and elective outpatient appointments. By 1 year, this increase was smaller (+0.306, 95% CI: 0.147-0.464) and referred patients had 0.048 (95% CI: -0.084 to -0.012) fewer appointments with general practitioners, compared to non-referred patients. Healthcare costs were <0.1% higher for referred patients (clinically insignificant), due to costs of additional secondary care admissions over both time periods. Interpretation: The initial increase in use of elective healthcare suggests social prescribing may encourage health-seeking behaviour. The reduction in general practitioner appointments within 1 year suggests social prescribing may result in a shift toward more suitable forms of care. Better integration between social prescribing data platforms and electronic healthcare records would enable future research to estimate the effects of uptake, fidelity and completion of social prescribing link worker referrals on healthcare use and costs. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Indexed as

Healthcare costsHealthcare usePrimary careSecondary careSocial prescribing

Identifiers

PMID42802874
PMCPMC13616562

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.