Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41826846›Full record

SynthesisBMC primary care2026

Systematic literature review of economic studies on nature-based social prescribing for health improvement.

Sibylle Puntscher, Igor Stojkov, Marjan Arvandi, Felicitas Kühne, Annette Conrads-Frank, Veronika Papon, Daniela Schmid, Beate Jahn, Erica A Suzumura, Richard Kimberlee and 6 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC primary care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Sibylle PuntscherInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL - University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria. sibylle.puntscher@umit-tirol.at.ORCID 0000-0002-0591-7067
Igor StojkovInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL - University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-6788-7986
Marjan ArvandiInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL - University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-0976-9479
Felicitas KühneInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL - University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.
Annette Conrads-FrankInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL - University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-4304-1668
Veronika PaponInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL - University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.ORCID 0009-0009-1622-2744
Daniela SchmidFaculty of Life Sciences, Albstadt-Sigmaringen University, Sigmaringen, Germany.
Beate JahnInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL - University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-6764-6362
Erica A SuzumuraInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL - University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-1752-6095
Richard KimberleeFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0204-5574
Matthew JonesCentre for Public Health and Wellbeing, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3692-8065
Kaisu H PitkäläDepartment of General Practice and Primary Healthcare, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-9659-6985
Anu H JanssonDepartment of General Practice and Primary Healthcare, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-6531-2054
Jill S LittBarcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8593-5400
Uwe SiebertInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL - University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-6425-7671
Ursula RochauInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL - University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-1077-2058

Funding

Horizon 2020 945095
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNature-based social prescribing (NBSP) is a form of social prescribing that can enhance mental and/or physical health by connecting participants with nature through non-medical community referrals. While evidence suggests potential benefits of NBSP in promoting well-being, its economic impact remains unclear. The purpose of our systematic literature review is to investigate the health-economic impact of NBSP programs.

methodsWe searched six databases in July 2024. Two reviewers independently screened publications for eligibility: (1) NBSP interventions for health improvement among adults (2), partial or complete economic analyses, and (3) peer-reviewed original studies, published in English, Spanish, or German after the year 2000. Eligible data were systematically extracted by two independent authors into an extraction form including standardized information on the publication, population and setting, compared strategies, details of the analytic framework, main results, limitations, and study conclusions. This information was further synthesized in an evidence table and analyzed using a narrative synthesis approach, with results summarized for each study. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list. The review followed PRISMA guideline and is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021286176).

resultsOf the 2,985 hits identified, five studies met the inclusion criteria, all of which were conducted in the United Kingdom (UK) and included people with mild mental and/or physical health issues. The time horizon ranged from twelve weeks to ten years. Three studies conducted a social return on investment (SROI) analysis and reported SROI ratios between 2.6 and 5.1 British pounds (GBP) per GBP invested. One cost-benefit study identified economic returns of 6,000–14,000 GBP per person after one year, with potential returns of up to 8,600 − 24,500 GBP per person after ten years. One cost-utility analysis resulted in costs of 8,600 GBP per quality-adjusted life year gained.

conclusionsEvidence on the health and economic impacts of NBSP is currently limited. The five identified studies, all based in the UK, generally reported favorable health and economic findings. However, the small number of studies, their methodological limitations, and the exclusive UK focus constrain the generalizability of these conclusions. To better inform healthcare decision-making and to implement NBSP programs worldwide, further research on NBSP interventions and their economic impact is needed. Consequently, future studies should explore international settings, incorporate additional data sources, include control groups, and assess longer follow-up periods.

Indexed as

Health PromotionSocial PrescribingCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMental HealthHealth economic analysesMental healthNature-based social prescribingPhysical healthSocial return on investmentSystematic reviewWell-being

Identifiers

PMID41826846
PMCPMC13101246

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.