Does social prescribing work? NASP's Evidence reports

Edge Hill University and The National Academy for Social Prescribing have published a systematic evidence review, focusing on how nature-based projects – like walking schemes, community gardening, green gyms and outdoor arts and cultural programmes – can support people living with a range of long-term conditions. 

This is the final report from a year-long research project exploring the potential for greater community involvement in and leadership of social prescribing in England. The research concludes that sustainable investment in community development, capacity and resources is needed to enable community leadership of and involvement in social prescribing.  

There is strong and growing evidence that social prescribing services can lead to substantial reductions in avoidable GP appointments, hospital admissions and A&E attendances. The report brings together studies from nine areas, which look specifically at the impact of social prescribing on NHS service use. 

NASP commissioned a rapid scoping review to identify and collate existing resources that aim to support the evaluation of social prescribing activities, particularly within the VCFSE sector, assess the appropriateness and quality of these resources and determine the need for an additional toolkit. 

There are a growing number of robust evaluations on the economic impact of social prescribing. Findings from studies using five different methods show that social prescribing can have a positive economic impact, including reducing pressure on the NHS a delivering return on investment.

There is emerging evidence to show the benefits of social prescribing for children and young people, particularly for those aged over 17, on personal and mental wellbeing, including loneliness. 

The evidence consistently shows a positive link between better health and wellbeing and time spent taking part in arts, heritage and cultural activities. The UK is considered a leader in 'Arts on Prescription' and there is a growing demand for home and community based arts and culture related activities. 

Current evidence shows a range of different funding models for social prescribing. These reflect that funding can come from the private, public, and charitable sectors. The most effective funding approaches seem to involve a range of local partners working together. It is important to acknowledge the challenges this can present.  

Social prescribing can engage with people of all age groups. Reasons for referral often include mild-to-moderate mental health difficulties, loneliness and social isolation. Studies of show some demographic differences, with nearly twice as many women than men currently using these services. Not many studies report on the use of social prescribing by children under the age of 16.  

Social prescribing can help people in crisis, and those with long-term conditions. The service also supports those in a caring role. It can address common mental health difficulties. These include, “loneliness, stress, mild to moderate depression, and anxiety”. This area requires further research, particularly for children and young people. But there is robust evidence to support the efficacy of social prescribing for mental health.  

Social prescribing can save costs and reduce pressure on primary care. The evidence about its impact on secondary care is inconclusive, but some studies do report reduced secondary care use. Evidence suggests the return on investment is favourable.  

People from black, Asian and ethnically diverse population groups are currently under-represented in social prescribing. But there is very limited evidence to help us understand why. So, we need to build a better picture of awareness and engagement with social prescribing by people from these communities. And we need to better understand the barriers to their engagement in the service.