ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Identifying key outcomes for social prescribing research in the US: a Delphi method study.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The US has a history of using social prescribing (SP) to address social determinants of health. Recently, and in alignment with global trends, more SP programs are being developed with a broader focus on community-based social supports and social connection. As SP programs proliferate in the US in the absence of a synthesizable evidence base, this study sought to identify key common outcomes to help enable evidence synthesis to guide practice, policy, research, and investment in social prescribing in the US. This study used a three-phase modified Delphi Method approach to develop a set of key common outcomes for SP research in the US. A mapping review of global social prescribing literature identifying 347 unique outcomes organized in 18 categories of data was followed by two rounds of Delphi Method processes including iterative surveys, group dialogue, and member checking with purposive samples of 17 international and 21 US SP experts and stakeholders. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed to create ranked lists of priority patient and system outcomes. The study identified 10 patient outcomes and six system outcomes as priority for study of SP programs in the US. Wellbeing, social connection, and coping/resilience were the three top priority patient outcomes. Health equity, return on investment, and health system cost savings were the top three priority health system outcomes. Consistent study of these key common outcomes has the potential to enable evidence synthesis of social prescribing research and, in turn, drive evidence-based practice, investment, and policy in this fast-growing arena of public health practice in the US.
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.