ArticleBMC primary care2025
How to improve support for people with (complex) multiple-problems through social prescribing in a vulnerable neighborhood; professionals', experts-by-experience' and clients' perspectives.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. 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.
- Collaboration between healthcare citizen initiatives and primary healthcare care providers: semi-structured interviews and focus groups with Dutch stakeholders.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Models, implementation, and reported outcomes of social prescribing interventions: a scoping review.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComparative analysis of literature on social prescribing implementation suggests that strategies for implementing social prescribing for people with (complex) multiple-problems may differ significantly from those for people with mild-psychosocial issues. Similar findings have been observed in the Netherlands, where a SP program has been developed in 2018. This study examines the perspectives of health and care professionals, experts-by-experience, and clients regarding the design and implementation of social prescribing in vulnerable neighborhoods in order to better support people with (complex) multiple-problems.
methodsThis study includes the first steps of the participatory action research methodology. During the research, 26 semi-structured interviews and observations were applied to gain insight among professionals, experts-by-experience and clients.
resultsThe findings indicate that support for people with (complex) multiple-problems requires more than a referral to already existing activities and services. Experts-by-experience and clients highlighted the necessity for a tailored based approach that considers clients' unique circumstances, e.g. the clients' living environment, particularly for those with (complex) multiple-problems and having a multicultural backgrounds. While all participants recognized the importance of addressing wider health needs, they also identified several challenges in doing so. Key themes for improving the support for individuals with (complex)multiple-problems are related to fragmentation due to insufficient collaboration, and to how wider health needs can best be addressed and by whom.
conclusionWhile there is a clear willingness to enhance support for people with multiple-problems, findings reveal significant challenges faced by all parties involved. A key issue identified is the mismatch between what clients need and what professionals are able to provide. Ultimately, a tailored approach is essential for effectively addressing the complex and wider health needs of both individuals and populations, in order to improve their overall health and well-being outcomes. This approach may be feasible by providing clients with (complex) multiple-problem with a single case manager as first point of entry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.