ArticleBMJ open2026
Defining social prescribing link worker practice in Europe: an international Delphi consensus study of core functions, training needs and implementation conditions.
Article in BMJ open, 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop expert consensus on best practice approaches to social prescribing (SP) in European primary care, with a focus on the roles, competencies and implementation conditions for social prescribing link workers (SPLWs).
designA three-round Delphi study conducted online. Round 1 used open-ended questions to map current practice and inform statement development; Round 2 rated 52 statements on a 5-point Likert scale with an a priori approval threshold of ≥80% agreement (agree/strongly agree); Round 3 rerated 19 statements using approval (≥80% agree/strongly agree) and rejection (≥80% disagree/strongly disagree) thresholds.
settingVirtual (online survey platform).
participantsAn international, multidisciplinary expert panel recruited via relevant SP networks and targeted invitations, including researchers, healthcare professionals, link workers and implementation stakeholders in accordance with the published study protocol.
resultsRound 1 was completed by 75/85 invited panellists (88%). In Round 2, 57/75 (76%) rated 52 statements across six domains; 19/52 met the ≥80% agreement threshold, with strongest consensus for core SPLW functions (navigation, advocacy, follow-up and documentation) and for support needs (mandatory communication/navigation training and supervision). Round 3 was completed by 57/57 (100%) and approved 13/19 rerated statements, extending consensus to include data collection with appropriate safeguards, optional accompaniment to community activities, limited first-step support for urgent social problems, context-sensitive funding principles, a cofunded employment model, multiple access routes (including telephone/in-person/online), self-referral and secondary-care referral, and the use of digital tools as complements rather than substitutes for relational support.
conclusionAcross three Delphi rounds, the panel converged on actionable, consensus-based recommendations for SPLW practice and for accessible, context-adaptable implementation.
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.