The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance
Craig, P., Dieppe, P., Macintyre, S., Michie, S., Nazareth, I., & Petticrew, M. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a1655 · Cited by 10,995
Ogrinc, G., Davies, L., Goodman, D., Batalden, P., Davidoff, F., & Stevens, D. (2016) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411 · Cited by 2,996
Orrow, G., Kinmonth, A.-L., Sanderson, S., & Sutton, S. (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e1389 · Cited by 739
The Tension between Needing to Improve Care and Knowing How to Do It
Auerbach, A. D., Landefeld, C. S., & Shojania, K. G. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsb070738 · Cited by 411
Pavey, T. G., Taylor, A. H., Fox, K. R., Hillsdon, M., Anokye, N., Campbell, J. L., Foster, C., Green, C., Moxham, T., Mutrie, N., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d6462 · Cited by 316
Can social prescribing provide the missing link?
South, J., Higgins, T. J., Woodall, J., & White, S. M. (2008) · Primary Health Care Research & Development · doi:10.1017/s146342360800087x · Cited by 166
Grant, C. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7232.419 · Cited by 150
Exploring the components and impact of social prescribing
Foster, A., & O’Cathain, A. (2015) · Journal of Public Mental Health · doi:10.1108/jpmh-06-2014-0027 · Cited by 92
New approaches to evaluating complex health and care systems
Lamont, T., Barber, N., de Pury, J., Fulop, N., Garfield-Birkbeck, S., Lilford, R. J., Mear, L., Raine, R., & Fitzpatrick, R. M. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i154 · Cited by 90
Washburn, R. A., Lambourne, K., Szabo‐Reed, A. N., Herrmann, S. D., Honas, J. J., & Donnelly, J. E. (2013) · Clinical Obesity · doi:10.1111/cob.12040 · Cited by 76
Cited by
Lim, M. H., Eres, R., & Vasan, S. (2020) · Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s00127-020-01889-7 · Cited by 438
Howarth, M., Brettle, A., Hardman, M., & Maden, M. (2020) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-036923 · Cited by 198
Paquet, C., Whitehead, J., Shah, R., Adams, A. M., Dooley, D., Spreng, R. N., Aunio, A.-L., & Dubé, L. (2023) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/40213 · Cited by 156
Benson, T., Sladen, J., Liles, A., & Potts, H. W. W. (2019) · BMJ Open Quality · doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2018-000394 · Cited by 77
Elston, J., Gradinger, F., Asthana, S., Lilley-Woolnough, C., Wroe, S., Harman, H., & Byng, R. (2019) · Primary Health Care Research & Development · doi:10.1017/s1463423619000598 · Cited by 78
Metadata
- Authors
- Bickerdike, L., Booth, A., Wilson, P. M., Farley, K., & Wright, K.
- Venue
- BMJ Open
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2017-04
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e013384
- ISSN
- 2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2604279332
- Cited by
- 773
- References
- 18
- FWCI
- 52.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013384
- The paper
- Bickerdike, L., Booth, A., Wilson, P. M., Farley, K., & Wright, K. (2017). Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013384
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.