ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Models, implementation, and reported outcomes of social prescribing interventions: a scoping review.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Social prescribing has gained international attention as an approach that connects individuals with community-based, non-clinical resources to address social determinants of health and support well-being. Despite growing use across health and community systems, the evidence remains fragmented, with variation in intervention models, settings, target populations, mechanisms, and implementation conditions. Objective: This scoping review aimed to map the characteristics of social prescribing interventions, including models, initiation and coordination settings, referred community assets, target populations, reported mechanisms, outcomes, implementation facilitators and barriers, and evidence gaps. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the frameworks of Arksey and O'Malley (22), Levac et al. (23) and Joanna Briggs Institute guidance. Reporting followed PRISMA-ScR and PRISMA-S. MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Embase were searched from inception, with the final search conducted on June 13, 2026. Eligibility criteria followed the Population-Concept-Context framework. Two reviewers independently screened records and charted data using a standardized extraction form. Findings were synthesized descriptively and thematically. Results: Of 7,602 records identified, 115 peer-reviewed empirical studies met the inclusion criteria after deduplication and screening. Included studies used qualitative ( Conclusion: This review integrates evidence on link worker models, arts and cultural prescribing, nature-based approaches, and condition-focused programs within a single analytical framework. Social prescribing appears to operate through relational processes, community capacity, and local implementation conditions, not referral pathways alone. These findings may inform future research, policy, and practice.
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.