Models, implementation, and reported outcomes of social prescribing interventions: a scoping review

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.

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.

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.

Of 7,602 records identified, 115 peer-reviewed empirical studies met the inclusion criteria after deduplication and screening. Included studies used qualitative (n = 51), mixed-methods (n = 34), and quantitative (n = 30) designs and were conducted across primary care, community, cultural, nature-based, mental health, and hospital settings in 16 countries, including one cross-national Italy-Portugal study. Most studies originated from the United Kingdom (approximately 64%). Reported outcomes included improved mental well-being, reduced loneliness, increased confidence, stronger social connectedness, and improved everyday functioning, whereas clinical and system-level outcomes were more variable. Common mechanisms included relational continuity, personalized support, identity development, and engagement in meaningful community-based activities. Barriers included socioeconomic disadvantage, unstable funding, limited community-sector capacity, workforce pressures, and limited integration of social determinants into routine care pathways. Evidence gaps were notable for migrants, minoritized populations, young people, and economic evaluation.

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.