Primary-care-based social prescribing for mental health: an analysis of financial and environmental sustainability
Open accessAbstract
UNLABELLED: Aim To assess the effects of a social prescribing service development on healthcare use and the subsequent economic and environmental costs. BACKGROUND: Social prescribing services for mental healthcare create links with support in the community for people using primary care. Social prescribing services may reduce future healthcare use, and therefore reduce the financial and environmental costs of healthcare, by providing structured psychosocial support. The National Health Service (NHS) is required to reduce its carbon footprint by 80% by 2050 according to the Climate Change Act (2008). This study is the first of its kind to analyse both the financial and environmental impacts associated with healthcare use following social prescribing. The value of this observational study lies in its novel methodology of analysing the carbon footprint of a service at the primary-care level. METHOD: An observational study was carried out to assess the impact of the service on the financial and environmental impacts of healthcare use. GP appointments, psychotropic medications and secondary-care referrals were measured. Findings Results demonstrate no statistical difference in the financial and carbon costs of healthcare use between groups. Social prescribing showed a trend towards reduced healthcare use, mainly due to a reduction in secondary-care referrals compared with controls. The associations found did not achieve significance due to the small sample size leading to a large degree of uncertainty regarding differences. This study demonstrates that these services are potentially able to pay for themselves through reducing future healthcare costs and are effective, low-carbon interventions, when compared with cognitive behavioral therapy or antidepressants. This is an important finding in light of Government targets for the NHS to reduce its carbon footprint by 80% by 2050. Larger studies are required to investigate the potentials of social prescribing services further.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A social prescribing service for mental health in the United Kingdom was associated with reduced financial costs but an increased carbon footprint per patient.
“However, one study from the United Kingdom found that a social prescribing service for mental health—a service model which supports people to access healthcare resources and psychosocial support, considered to hold potential for reduced cost and carbon-footprint—was associated with reduced financial costs but an increased carbon footprint per patient.”
From Climate Change and Mental Health: A Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [102]
None of the differences between groups in the social prescribing study reached statistical significance.
“However, none of the differences between groups reached statistical significance [102].”
From Climate Change and Mental Health: A Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [102]
Cites
Barnett, K., Mercer, S. W., Norbury, M., Watt, G., Wyke, S., & Guthrie, B. (2012) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60240-2 · Cited by 6,972 · see citing works
Burns, T., Catty, J., Becker, T., Drake, R. E., Fioritti, A., Knapp, M., Lauber, C., Rössler, W., Tomov, T., van Busschbach, J., et al. (2007) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(07)61516-5 · Cited by 613 · see citing works
Cruwys, T., Dingle, G. A., Haslam, C., Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., & Morton, T. A. (2013) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.09.013 · Cited by 525 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Social prescribing services can also reduce future costs by improving vocational skills, social networks and self-esteem, all of which serve to improve mental health resilience (Burns et al., 2007; White and Salamon, 2010; Cruwys et al., 2013).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Climate Change and Mental Health: A Scoping Review
Charlson, F., Ali, S., Benmarhnia, T., Pearl, M., Massazza, A., Augustinavicius, J., & Scott, J. G. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18094486 · Cited by 507 · see citing works
- Authors
- Maughan, D. L., Patel, A., Parveen, T., Braithwaite, I., Cook, J., Lillywhite, R., & Cooke, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Warwick (GB)
- University of East Anglia (GB)
- University College London (GB)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Warwick University
- Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Maughan, Daniel L.
- Venue
- Primary Health Care Research & Development
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2015-05-29
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 114-121
- ISSN
- 1463-4236 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-1128
- OpenAlex
- W1834339415
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 70.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Primary Health Care Research & Development (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Conservation › Art Therapy and Mental Health
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Services Management and Policy
- Keywords
- social prescribing, mental health, primary care, carbon footprint, health care costs, secondary care referral, psychotropic drug use, NHS sustainability
- MeSH terms
- Community Mental Health Services, Cost-Benefit Analysis, United Kingdom, Humans, Primary Health Care, Psychotropic Drugs, Referral and Consultation, State Medicine, Carbon Footprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
