Liz Bickerdike|Alison L. Booth|Paul Wilson|Kate Farley|Kath Wright
Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence
University of York|University of York|University of Manchester|University of Leeds|University of York
h3objectivesh3 social prescribing way linking patients primary care sources support within community help improve health wellbeing social prescribing programmes widely promoted adopted uk national health service conducted systematic review assess evidence effectiveness h3settingdata sourcesh3 nine databases searched 2000 january 2016 studies conducted uk relevant reports guidelines websites reference lists retrieved articles scanned identify additional studies searches restricted english language h3participantsh3 systematic reviews published evaluation programmes patient referral made primary care setting link worker facilitator social prescribing eligible inclusion risk bias included studies undertaken independently two reviewers narrative synthesis performed h3primary secondary outcome measuresh3 primary outcomes interest measures health wellbeing andor usage health services h3resultsh3 included total 15 evaluations social prescribing programmes small scale limited poor design reporting rated high risk bias common design issues included lack comparative controls short followup durations lack standardised validated measuring tools missing data failure consider potential confounding factors despite clear methodological shortcomings evaluations presented positive conclusions h3conclusionsh3 social prescribing widely advocated implemented current evidence fails provide sufficient detail judge either success value money social prescribing realise potential future evaluations must comparative design consider well cost h3trial registration numberh3 prospero registration crd42015023501