ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Social prescribing for people recovering from treatment for cancer: a systematic scoping review.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocial prescribing (SP) has emerged as a non-medical strategy to enhance cancer survivors' well-being by addressing psychosocial challenges through diverse interventions. Despite growing evidence of benefits, a comprehensive synthesis of intervention effectiveness and implementation barriers remains limited. This scoping review updates current evidence on SP interventions, outcomes, and challenges among cancer survivors. PURPOSE: To identify and map SP interventions for post-treatment cancer survivors, assess their impact on well-being and quality of life, and summarise barriers and recommendations for improved accessibility and sustainability.
methodsPeer-reviewed studies involving adult cancer survivors that evaluated SP-related interventions with psychological, emotional, or quality of life outcomes were included. Reviews, editorials, conference abstracts, and non-English studies were excluded. Three databases (Scopus, PubMed, APA PsycINFO) were searched up to March 31, 2025. Data extraction captured study design, intervention type, setting, population, outcomes, and reported benefits or limitations. Narrative synthesis followed PRISMA-ScR and SWiM guidelines.
resultsThirty-two studies assessed seven intervention types: gardening, peer support, expressive writing, art therapy, physical activity, blue prescriptions, and spiritual care. These interventions enhanced emotional resilience, reduced stress, fostered social connections, and improved coping. Reported barriers included limited access to resources, participant engagement, professional support, and long-term sustainability.
conclusionSP interventions provide significant psychological and emotional benefits for cancer survivors. Addressing accessibility, engagement, and sustainability challenges is essential. Future research should explore hybrid and digital SP models with structured professional involvement to improve reach and effectiveness.
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.