Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Apr 7;7(4):e013384.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013384.

Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence

Liz Bickerdike  1 , Alison Booth  2 , Paul M Wilson  3 , Kate Farley  4 , Kath Wright  1
Affiliations

Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence

Liz Bickerdike et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: Social prescribing is a way of linking patients in primary care with sources of support within the community to help improve their health and well-being. Social prescribing programmes are being widely promoted and adopted in the UK National Health Service and so we conducted a systematic review to assess the evidence for their effectiveness.

Setting/data sources: Nine databases were searched from 2000 to January 2016 for studies conducted in the UK. Relevant reports and guidelines, websites and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies. All the searches were restricted to English language only.

Participants: Systematic reviews and any published evaluation of programmes where patient referral was made from a primary care setting to a link worker or facilitator of social prescribing were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias for included studies was undertaken independently by two reviewers and a narrative synthesis was performed.

Primary and secondary outcome measures: Primary outcomes of interest were any measures of health and well-being and/or usage of health services.

Results: We included a total of 15 evaluations of social prescribing programmes. Most were small scale and limited by poor design and reporting. All were rated as a having a high risk of bias. Common design issues included a lack of comparative controls, short follow-up durations, a lack of standardised and validated measuring tools, missing data and a failure to consider potential confounding factors. Despite clear methodological shortcomings, most evaluations presented positive conclusions.

Conclusions: Social prescribing is being widely advocated and implemented but current evidence fails to provide sufficient detail to judge either success or value for money. If social prescribing is to realise its potential, future evaluations must be comparative by design and consider when, by whom, for whom, how well and at what cost.

Trial registration number: PROSPERO Registration: CRD42015023501.

Keywords: PRIMARY CARE.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. NHS England. Integrated Care Pioneer Programme: annual report 2014: pioneer profiles and case study examples. Redditch: NHS England, 2014.
    1. University of Westminster. Report of the annual Social Prescribing Network conference London: University of Westminster, 2016.
    1. Kimberlee R, Ward R, Jones M, et al. . Measuring the economic impact of Wellspring Healthy Living Centre's Social Prescribing Wellbeing Programme for low level mental health issues encountered by GP services. Bristol: University of the West of England, 2014.
    1. Secretary of State for Health. Saving lives: our healthier nation. London: The stationery office, 1999.
    1. Department of Health, White paper . Our health, our care, our say: a new direction for community services. Crown copyright, 2006.

Publication types