ArticleBMC primary care2026
Is social prescribing feasible in Türkiye? Young family doctors' perspectives: a focus group study.
Article 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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocial prescribing (SP) addresses patients’ non-medical needs by connecting them to community-based services through structured referral pathways. While established in many European countries, SP remains unfamiliar in Türkiye. This qualitative focus group study examines family medicine resident doctors’ perspectives on the applicability of SP in Turkish primary care.
methodsThis single-centre qualitative study employed online focus group discussions (FGDs). Fourteen family medicine resident doctors were recruited and grouped into three focus sessions. Before the interviews, participants attended a one-hour briefing on the concept of SP. Data were collected through FGDs guided by a semi-structured interview guide, which were audio-recorded with consent and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were anonymised and analysed in MAXQDA using inductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke). Coding was conducted independently by two researchers and finalised through consensus meetings. Reporting follows the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist.
resultsAnalysis yielded 292 codes organized into five themes: conceptual ambiguity, perceived benefits, the central role of family doctors, feasibility barriers and enablers, and training needs. Resident physicians viewed SP as aligned with holistic family medicine but identified multi-level barriers at the clinician level (time/workload), patient level (motivation/costs), and system level (coordination/capacity). They proposed corresponding enablers: physician training, public awareness campaigns, individualized planning, multi-stakeholder coordination, and institutional support.
conclusionResident doctors are cautiously optimistic about SP but emphasise practical constraints. They recommended priority actions including concise training, clear referral and feedback pathways with a defined social prescribing link worker, asset mapping, and multi-stakeholder collaboration supported by basic monitoring and evaluation. Pilot implementations in Family Health Centres could test feasibility and inform scale-up and curriculum integration.
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.