ArticleBMC primary care2025
Co-designing social prescribing pathways: guidance on the use of deliberative dialogues for inclusive implementation.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundParticipatory methods can support the co-design and implementation of contextualized social prescribing programs by integrating diverse perspectives into the design process and prioritizing actions for implementation. Deliberative dialogues are a participatory method that provide structured, action-oriented forums for discussion and can promote equitable and impactful engagement in design initiatives. The aim of this work was to describe the use of this method in the co-design of social prescribing programs, providing practical guidance and lessons learned from conducting deliberative dialogues with interest-holders across health and social sectors.
methodsWe conducted initial outreach and held two online deliberative dialogues with local primary health care providers and community organizations. Additionally, in 2024, we hosted an in-person workshop on using deliberative dialogue to co-design social prescribing programs at an international conference on social prescription held in Toronto, Canada. We describe how the deliberative dialogues were facilitated to establish feasible pathways for social prescribing, determine core program components, and identify implementation barriers.
resultsOutreach activities and deliberative dialogues with diverse interest-holders helped identify local champions, build connections across sectors, and foster creative ideation. Participants consistently emphasized the need for inclusive, accessible social prescribing programs grounded in holistic, person-centered care. A team-based approach linking health and community services was similarly perceived as essential to ensuring continuity along the social prescribing pathway. Evident in our process and participant comments was the importance of early and meaningful engagement of interest holders in designing responsive and contextually relevant programs.
conclusionDeliberative dialogues offer a participatory, transformative, and pragmatic approach to co-designing social prescribing initiatives, facilitating meaningful collaboration and constructive exchange among diverse interest-holders. The insights and practical suggestions generated through this work can inform future participatory implementation efforts.
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.