Social Prescribing FAQs

Overview

As social prescribing (as it is now defined) is new to the United States and much of the world, much of our initial work is intended to foster dialogue on the concept, at both theoretical and practical levels. Please contact us with additional questions; we would be happy to add the answers to them here.

Jump to: The Basics, The Impact, Critiques, The Future, and Social Prescribing USA

Quick Links

Get Involved

Newsletter

Webinars & Events

The Basics

  • Social prescribing is a model of healthcare in which health professionals formally prescribe non-clinical activities (including art, music, movement, nature, and service) to improve health and wellness and to address social determinants of health, at minimal cost to the patient. 

    Social prescribing is built on a framework of health equity, which includes appropriate services and interventions individualized to the patient’s needs. Because access to community resources may not be easy for all, social prescribing is intended to facilitate connection with such resources and to add an additional tool for healing and health promotion to providers’ toolkits. (That is, it is intended to add to, rather than replace, clinical or pharmacological care.) 

    Take a look, too, at how other major leading social prescribing organizations define the field: 

    • Social prescribing is a means for healthcare workers to connect people to a range of non-clinical services in the community in order to improve health and wellbeing. Social prescribing can help to address the underlying causes of patients’ health and wellbeing issues, as opposed to simply treating the symptoms.(World Health Organization)

    • Social prescribing is an approach that connects people to activities, groups, and services in their community to meet the practical, social and emotional needs that affect their health and wellbeing. (NHS England)

    • Social prescribing is a model that enables health care providers and social service professionals to connect individuals with non-clinical supports and community resources that address individual and community needs based on the social determinants of health. Social prescribing is a person-centred approach that fosters self-determination by supporting individuals to create their own pathways to holistic well-being. (Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing)

    • Social prescribing is ‘a means of enabling GPs, nurses and other primary care professionals to refer people to a range of local, non-clinical services’. (Royal Australian College of General Practitioners)

  • Connecting with the community through activities like art, music, dance, movement, nature, and service has been valued across regions and cultures for millennia. 

    Social prescribing as a formal healthcare tool is attributed to the United Kingdom, which launched the first publicized pilot of social prescribing in the 1990s. Social prescribing was formally incorporated into the NHS’s funding and long-term plans in 2017 and 2019, respectively.

  • There are several models of how social prescribing can work, dependent on factors like a country’s healthcare system and available resources. 

    Many social prescribing programs use a link-worker model, although link workers are not a requirement for effective social prescribing. In link worker-based models…

    1. A physician or other health professional identifies a patient as a candidate for social prescribing and refers them to a link worker.

    2. The link worker gets to know the patient, their lifestyle, and their goals, and connects the patient with the social prescribing service of best fit.

    3. The patient follows up with the link worker and physician on the efficacy of the social prescription.

    In other models, the health professional refers the patient directly to the social prescribing service, without the use of a link worker. Sometimes, such interactions are facilitated by technological interventions that match patients and facilitate referrals directly to community resources.

    All social prescribing models involve a health professional (typically a primary care physician or GP), a community resource, and a patient, but other elements of social prescribing models vary by context. It is among our primary objectives to research the practicality and efficacy of social prescribing models within the United States’ healthcare system and to make an informed recommendation of cost-effective, efficient models for social prescribing in the US. 

    For more on how countries have incorporated social prescribing globally, please see Global Social Prescribing. 

  • How social prescribing is implemented - and who covers the service - depends in part on a country’s existing healthcare infrastructure. As social prescribing work expands within the United States, careful research will guide policy on how social prescribing will best fit into our healthcare system.

    Currently, social prescribing in the US is typically sponsored by community organizations and nonprofits. As one example, Mass Cultural Council reimbursed cultural institutions for the services they provided to recipients of social prescriptions and provided up-front grants to institutions to cover social prescribing services.

    Excitingly, other institutions within the US (including ArtPharmacy) are building scalable models for coverage of social prescription by third-party payers, like insurers, managed care providers, and employers. An organized presence of social prescribers in the US and a robust, systematic approach to evaluating short and long term efficacy and cost-savings of social prescribing initiatives will be essential to partnerships with third-party payers. We are deeply committed to building such organization and evidence.

  • Not at all! While social prescribing has most commonly been applied to treating concerns of mental health, loneliness, and social determinants of health, it should be included for consideration in other contexts, too (see our evidence library). As just a few examples, research suggests that dance may be particularly valuable for improving motor control and gait in Parkinson’s disease, that exercise offers significant benefit to the management of myriad conditions, including diabetes and osteoarthritis, and that social connection itself may reduce hospital readmission in patients with heart disease.

    Social prescription, like any medication or medical procedure, is not a cure-all, but its applications extend well beyond subjective feelings of wellbeing to measurable management of mental and physical health alike.

  • Social prescribing does not have any limitations on intended audience. It can be beneficial for all ages, including young people and the elderly.

    While it has most commonly been applied to treating concerns of loneliness, it should not be excluded from consideration as an adjunctive treatment for other health concerns. And, even if social/community activity is not ultimately prescribed to a patient, we strongly advocate for physician discussion of lifestyle factors with all patients.

  • Social prescriptions are typically time-bound interventions and range in duration depending on the health concern.

    While research can and should inform effective durations for social prescribing interventions, we also believe that the promotion of social prescription should be accompanied by the pursuit of equitable, long-term access to needed resources for all.

The Impact

  • The short answer is yes! We have excellent reason to believe social prescribing is effective. 

    At their core, social prescribing interventions are designed to help patients experience the health benefits of social connection, a known determinant of health. In addition to improving mental health, social connection has been found to reduce risk for coronary artery disease and stroke (Heart), dementia (Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease), diabetes (Diabetes Care), addiction relapse (Drug & Alcohol Dependence), and even the common cold (JAMA). 

    Social prescribing interventions typically use art, music, movement, nature, and service to foster connection. While there is known variance in intervention delivery, measurement, and rigor, there is a growing body of evidence that, in addition to facilitating social connection, specific interventions may be beneficial for additional patient populations and illnesses. 

    Art may alleviate depression and anxiety in coronary artery disease (Journal of Korean Medicine & Science), improve attention and self-esteem in older adults with dementia (Dementia), and improve quality of life when used as an adjunctive treatment for pediatric cancer (Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology,Journal of Pediatric Nursing).

    Dance may reduce risk for weight gain, stress, cardiac illness, and improve overall life satisfaction in the general population (American Journal of Health Education). It may positively influence attention, social skills, subjective stress, and symptom expression in young adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder (Autism), alleviate geriatric depression (Journal of the American Medical Directors’ Association), and slow motor decline and improve both cognitive and psychological skills in individuals with Parkinson’s Disease (Brain Science).

    Exercise, even if not dance, is demonstrated to have a similarly wide range of benefits, from aiding in diabetes management (Diabetes Care) to reducing all-cause mortality and cardiac deaths (Cardiopulmonary Physical Therapy Journal,JAMA), protecting against depression (American Journal of Psychiatry), reducing anxiety (British Journal of Sports Medicine), and attenuating progression of both Parkinson’s Disease (Mayo Clinic Proceedings) and cognitive decline (Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease).

    Music may improve respiration capacity, speech clarity, and speech muscle coordination in patients with neuromuscular deficits (Australian Occupational Therapy Journal), reduce severity of postnatal depression (Journal of Clinical Nursing), improve global state, symptoms and functioning in individuals with severe mental health disorders (Clinical Psychology Review), improve outcomes in Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation (Australian Occupational Therapy Journal), improve gait and balance in movement disorders (Movement Disorders), and improvement in systolic blood pressure for individuals with diagnosed hypertension (International Journal of Cardiology)

    In addition to improving overall mental health (BioScience), time in nature may reduce risk of Type II Diabetes and Obesity (International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health), lower risk of dementia and stroke (Environmental Research), improve markers of cognitive health, including cortical thickness (BMJ Open), improve quality of life in dementia patients (Health & Place) and reduce fatigue in cancer patients (International Journal of Exercise Science).

    Volunteering has been found to have particularly strong effects for older populations, reducing morbidity & mortality (Psychological Science), reducing stress & self-efficacy (Social Science & Medicine,Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin), and promoting overall wellbeing via improved sense of meaning, positive mood, and physical activity (APA Psychological Bulletin).

    Now, how social prescriptions are implemented, and how rigorously they are defined and monitored, can vary by provider and can impact efficacy. We are eager to provide structured, rigorous guidance on establishing and tracking the impact of social prescribing programs to increase the likelihood of efficacy. Further, studies finding absent, mild, or nuanced effects do not detract from the highly convincing case for social prescribing but instead allow providers to develop a more nuanced view of right intervention for the right patient, at the right time. In addition, as with any discipline, studies that note methodological shortcomings and opportunities for future research should inspire rigorous action and continued research, rather than disengagement from promising, innovative, practical healthcare solutions.

  • While much depends on how social prescribing interventions are delivered (with reiteration of the ‘rights’ of medicine, including right patient, right time, and right dose), economic analyses of the impact of social prescribing indicate potential for significant cost savings at a local, state, federal, and global scale.

    An analysis from the National Academy for Social Prescribing, which examined the economic impact of social prescribing in nine local health systems in England, found that social prescribing reduced pressure on the NHS through reduced number of GP visits (-42%) and emergency visits (-23% overall, -43% for frequent users of health services). The same report found a 9% reduction in overall secondary care costs for a social prescribing group as compared to a matched control. 

    Another analysis from the same group found that social prescribing programs can deliver between £2.14 and £8.56 ($2.20 and $8.82) in social and economic value for every £1 ($1.03) invested. 

    In July 2024, the Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing released a report with its anchor organization, the Canadian Red Cross, estimating an ROI of $4.43 for every dollar invested in social prescribing, as well as approximately $296M in annual cost savings from reduced hospital admissions and emergency visits, $114M in annual cost savings from reduced primary care visits, $59.9M annual increase in employment income for youth with depressive symptoms, 16,900 fewer cases of coronary artery disease, and 2,000 fewer cases of avoidable deaths. 

    In addition to report on the economic efficacy of social prescribing, there is additional evidence on: 

    The significant cost of preventable diseases and the benefits of investing in health promotion/disease prevention

    • A 2011 report from the World Economic Forum identified noncommunicable diseases and mental disorders as the leading contributors to disease burden globally, estimating costs of more than $30T from the time of publication to 2030 and a cumulative output loss of $47T, with over $16T spent on mental health conditions alone during that period. 

    • A report from the Milliken Institute found that obesity is the greatest risk factor contributing to the economic burden of chronic diseases in the US and total healthcare treatment for chronic health conditions costing $1.1T in a single year. 

    • Data from the Lancet and JAMA indicate that nearly half of all health burden in the US is attributable to a list of 84 modifiable risk factors; by addressing health risk factors, we can in turn influence healthcare costs. 

    • Data from the Lancet suggests that preventative healthcare can save at least $3-7B per year and 2-3 million lives 

    • Isolation alone as costly - an article in the Journal of Aging and Health estimated that objective isolation predicted greater medicare spending of $1644 per patient annually, and the US Surgeon General’s Advisory on Loneliness and Isolation estimated $6.7B in excess Medicare spending annually from loneliness-related concerns. 

    By reducing incidence of preventable disease or moderating the effects, reducing these costs

    Economic impact of poor health also extends to indirect costs to employers from lower productivity and higher injury rates; a study from Health Resources in Action of Boston estimates that these costs can be 2-3x the costs of direct medical expenses, and that a reduction in risk factors through health promotion could lead to a gain of more than $1T annually in labor supply and efficiency.  

    Given the role of social connection in seeking jobs and job satisfaction, too, interventions focused on social connection may further reduce economic burden of isolation (Our world in Data). The US Surgeon General’s Advisory on Loneliness and Isolation estimated that stress-related absenteeism from loneliness cost employers an estimated $154 Billion annually. 

    Not all interventions are created equal: importance of careful measurement and reporting of costs, clear reporting, and importance of sharing not only what is effective but what is not. Some populations may have greater cost savings that others, with some sources indicating the greatest cost savings for frequent attenders at hospitals; Frontiers in Public Health estimated a direct cost savings of EUR78.37 per participant during a five-month social prescribing intervention. 

Critiques

  • As with any scientific development, we believe that healthy skepticism can support the maturation of a relatively new intervention into one that is rigorous and maximally effective. We therefore aim for a high degree of transparency about common critiques of social prescribing. 

    One critique is that social prescriptions are typically time-bound. As a result, social prescriptions may be seen as only a bandage over larger societal challenges in equitable access to resources. 

    We believe that it is important to work for long-term, affordable access to art, music, movement, nature, and service at a systemic level at the same time that we work to promote social prescribing within our healthcare system. 

    At the same time, promotion of social prescribing, even if time-bound, may bring valuable attention to the importance of lifestyle factors in health and foster a culture of discussing those factors in all patient visits, regardless of the ultimate treatment plan. Currently, we notice a striking disconnect between the healthcare system and discussion of lifestyle factors, and we see great potential for social prescribing to bring needed attention to that intersection. 

    Furthermore, in considering social prescribing as a medical tool, it is of utmost importance that the patient receive the right dose for their needs – that is, a dose long enough to have a measurable impact on their health and wellbeing. Just like any other tool in a provider’s toolkit (including pharmacological prescriptions, which are also often time-bound), we encourage discussion of the appropriate length for social prescriptions, informed by patient data, rather than rejection of time-bound prescriptions as a whole. We heartily agree on the importance of interventions long enough to establish healthy habits and provide significant improvement, and we eagerly advocate for the importance of clear scientific research to identify those durations. 

    Finally, we believe that like any health treatment, it is critically important to identify not only the right dose and right length of treatment, but also the populations for whom the treatment is most effective. Social prescribing is not a cure-all, but it has high potential to be impactful for specific patient groups (including the isolated, the elderly, those with neurodegenerative diseases, and frequent hospital visitors). As social prescribing develops as a practice, pursuit of these specifics (that is, which treatments for which populations) will ultimately help us develop a highly effective model for the integration of lifestyle factors into the healthcare system. That successful integration will be critical for inspiring action across all sectors on equitable access to art, music, movement, nature and service in all contexts, for people of all health statuses. 

    Another critique of social prescribing is that the evidence on its efficacy is mixed or unclear. This is true: some pilots have been found to be effective in outcome and cost savings and others not. We share several discussion points in response: 

    The literature on the importance of social connection to health is incredibly robust (see our evidence library). This inspires us to believe that the question is not whether social connection is important for health (the foundational idea of social prescribing) but what interventions effectively promote social connection in ways that measurably impact health outcomes and healthcare costs. It is to be expected that in trying to discover effective interventions, some will be successful and others not. The most we can ask is for transparency in such data so that we can better hone in on the interventions that are effective and steadfast commitment to the continuation of such research, modified appropriately by a keen understanding of past findings. 

    As demonstrated in our evidence library, too, a growing body of research examines the efficacy of specific interventions (including music, dance, art, exercise, and nature) for specific health concerns. Many literature reviews on these topics cite heterogeneity of findings and indicate significant methodological limitations. 

    While we acknowledge the difficulty of studying non-clinical interventions, we also affirm the importance of rigorous and consistent research standards, including prioritization of randomized control trials, random sampling, identification of control groups, clear protocols for intervention delivery, and use of validated metrics when studying them.  We are inspired by groups like the National Institute of Health (NIH), which recently released a toolkit of guidelines for studying music interventions to promote greater consistency and rigor and are optimistic about the application of similar frameworks to other interventions. 

    Ultimately, we believe that the best response to heterogeneity in the evidence is a commitment to further study through thorough, clearly-defined protocols and adherence to the principles of scientific research. We also encourage readers to be open to all honestly-discovered findings, including limited efficacy of certain pilots. We hope that audiences will not to be discouraged by such findings but find inspiration to further modify, study, and promote interventions that are beneficial to patient populations.

  • With robust evidence that social connection is highly influential on health outcomes and a growing literature that the non-clinical interventions themselves can be effective for specific conditions (including dance for improving gait and motor control in Parkinson’s disease patients), it is important that social prescribing become a tool in healthcare provider toolkits. 

    Like any medication or procedure, social prescriptions aren’t a cure-all, but they can be highly effective in the right circumstances. Furthermore, the mere presence of social prescribing in healthcare systems may foster meaningful discussion about lifestyle habits and community resources between providers and patients, regardless of the treatment ultimately prescribed. Rather than reinforce separation between healthcare and daily life, social prescribing can bring the community and the physician’s office closer together and encourage mutual benefit; while providers can connect patients with community resources that they may not be familiar with or otherwise be able to access, community organizations can in turn support the functioning of the healthcare system and reduce the likelihood of system overwhelm. 

    If social prescribing is incorporated into the healthcare system, additional benefits include: 

    • Access: Social prescribing is a valuable avenue to promoting health equity via access to community resources. Successful incorporation into healthcare and demonstrated benefit may also inspire additional sectors to collaborate on expanded access to the arts, music, movement, nature, and service opportunities. 

    • Engagement: Integration of healthcare and community organizations via social prescribing promotes engagement and connection across sectors. 

    • Culturally relevant care: Social prescriptions present important opportunities to support a patient through treatments that reflect their culture and values. Art, music, and dance prescriptions may reflect a patient’s desire to connect with their cultural background or learn about others. 

    • Addressing stigma: Despite evidence on the critical importance of social connection for health, non-clinical interventions that promote social connection may still be regarded as less valuable than other methods of care. If social prescribing is formally integrated into the healthcare system, it is more likely to be regarded as an equal and valued option for treatment than if non-clinical interventions are kept separate from healthcare practices. 

    In short, a healthcare system without social prescribing presents challenges to all parts of the system: 

    • The community (city, town, municipality): Valuable resources for social connection and health may remain unknown and underutilized without a system of sharing them widely. 

    • The physician: The physician may not have the right tools at their disposal, which may result in more frequent patient visits from persistent underlying health concerns. 

    • The patient: The patient may not have a channel available to learn about the importance of connection and healthy lifestyle interventions

    As with any medication, if the social prescription is not effective, the physician has a duty to adjust accordingly. Social prescriptions are neither a default or last resort but an equal tool for assisting patients.

  • We don’t believe so. Providers frequently learn about and incorporate new treatments into their approaches, and social prescription is simply another new approach for providers to consider.

    Furthermore, social prescribing does not necessarily require that physicians spend additional time with their patients. With effective technology and operating models (such as tools that integrate with EHR systems), social prescribing can be brought to life in ways that do not add undue burden to an already-stressed healthcare system. 

    In addition, physicians may find that incorporating social prescribing gives them added satisfaction and enjoyment in caring for their patients. This is an invaluable benefit in a system struggling with significant provider burnout.  (New England Journal of Medicine).

  • Very much so! Three public health trends reinforce the urgency of expanding social prescribing initiatives within the United States. 

    First, public health data suggests persistent trends of poor mental health and isolation, both of which social prescribing is designed to address. Approximately one in five US adults experience acute mental illness (National Institute of Mental Health), and 38% more people are in mental treatment since the onset of the pandemic (Pew). Both youth and adult mental health demonstrate striking trends: 42% of high school students report persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, up from 16% in 2011, and only 39% of US adults report feeling very connected to others (Pew, US Surgeon General Advisory on Loneliness and Isolation). Further, while 90% of non-lonely US adults reported having three or more confidants, half of US Adults report having three or fewer close friends compared to only 27% in 1990 (US Surgeon General Advisory). Older adults experience similar trends, with approximately 30% of adults of this demographic reporting anxiety and depressive disorders as compared to 11% in 2018 (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration/Kaiser Family Foundation)

    At the same time, our healthcare system is facing staggeringly high levels of burnout and provider shortages. Approximately 35-54% of nurses and physicians and 45-60% of medical students and residents report symptoms of burnout, accounting for $2.6-6.3B in turnover costs (US Surgeon General Advisory on Health Worker Burnout). The American Association of Medical Colleges predicts that the US will face a shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036 in addition to greater demands for care as the population aged 65 and older grows by 34.1% during that same time period. (AAMC). Additional sources suggest that the system faces a shortage of providers of many types, including an estimated shortage of 400,000 home health aides and 29,400 nurses by the end of 2025 (Mercer/Duquesne University). Many specialties already experience acute shortages, including mental healthcare: 60% of psychologists report no openings for new patients (APA), and there are approximately 340 people for every mental health provider in the US (Mental Health America, Kaiser). 

    At the same time, there is a notable rise in interest in the field of lifestyle medicine within the United States. While lifestyle medicine and social prescribing are not synonymous, they are related: Lifestyle medicine is a specialty focused on the role of lifestyle factors in preventing, managing, and reversing chronic disease and is focused on six pillars (a whole food, plant-predominant eating pattern, physical activity, restorative sleep, stress management, avoidance of risky substances, and positive social connections) (American College of Lifestyle Medicine). Social prescribing, while not unique to one speciality, looks to support social connection, often through interventions that touch on multiple lifestyle medicine pillars, including physical activity and stress management. Lifestyle medicine is one of the fastest-growing medical specialties in America; after its establishment as a formalized specialty in 2004, its steadily-community of 4000 practitioners in 2019 more than doubled to 9000 active members by 2022 (Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Permanente Journal). 

    While trends in mental health, provider shortages, and provider burnout paint raise great alarm about the state of healthcare in the US, rising interest in lifestyle medicine and recognition of the importance of social connection and lifestyle factors determinants of health at a national level (US Surgeon General Advisory, Bureau of Health Workforce) offer a glimmer of hope in an otherwise bleak landscape. 

    While social prescribing may not single-handedly turn the tides of our healthcare system, we are confident that it will play a very significant role in doing so. By promoting collaboration with community organizations and by promoting connection as medicine, music as medicine, movement as medicine, nature as medicine… social prescribing expands the definition and number of healthcare providers available to patients. By prioritizing connection and community, social prescribing directly addresses a primary determinant of the mental and physical health challenges that so many are experiencing. And, by offering one avenue by which providers themselves may find more joy and satisfaction in their work, social prescribing may help us keep providers engaged, happy, and able to provide care for many, for the long run. 

  • It’s always possible that, with the advent of a new trend in healthcare comes demand that outpaces supply. The stakes may feel particularly high given our already-overwhelmed healthcare system. 

    While rollouts of social prescription globally have not yet indicated such a scenario (see global social prescribing), what would happen if patients came running for social prescriptions - or how could we prevent that from occuring in the first place? 

    One way to prevent a flooding of the healthcare system might be to provide excellent education on social prescriptions - what they are, who they are intended for, and how to incorporate lifestyle changes into one’s life (and explore community resources) independently. 

    But an increase in patient interest in social prescriptions, within reason, would be far from a bad thing; instead, it could give a concrete understanding of interest and demand for such services and help bolster funding for social prescribing initiatives. The largest obstacle to the growth of social prescribing in the US currently is awareness and, relatedly, funding for both pilot programs and rigorous research projects. 

    While we do not hope for or anticipate a flood of the healthcare system for social prescriptions, we hope to nurture a steady interest in this topic and to promote research and pilot programs to reflect growing familiarity with this mode of healthcare delivery. 

  • While the role of social workers is an essential one to the health of our society, designating social prescribing as an activity only for the social work domain reduces the likelihood that patients will receive the full benefits and intentions of the social prescribing model. Access to social workers varies considerably, with little public awareness of how to go about doing so. Payment and insurance coverage for social workers is equally variable and opaque for many, in addition to possible stigma that may be less prevalent when visiting a GP or physician. Additionally, requiring that patients independently access and connect with a social worker requires time and knowledge and may add barriers to adherence. 

    If there is a direct relationship between social prescription providers and major healthcare systems, rather than individual social workers, the likelihood of a scalable, efficient, effective and cost-effective system is greatly increased.

The Future

  • If social prescribing is to quickly become accessible across the United States, it is important that both patients and providers become familiar with this kind of healthcare delivery. 

    Familiarity with any new initiative is a prerequisite for comfort with investing in it, and social prescribing is likely no exception; more regular incorporation of social prescribing into news, media, and discourse will be an important catalyst for additional growth of the social prescribing movement. 

    Second, increased funding for social prescribing will perhaps be the most significant determinant of its success in the United States, as funding will support research grants, the launch of pilot programs, and rigorous data analysis and publication to track and measure the impact of social prescribing initiatives. 

    Additionally, it is imperative that such research and pilot programs adhere to rigorous protocols and standards of research. Studying non-clinical interventions can be challenging, but commitment to principles of sound scientific research are essential to the long term success and reputability of the social prescribing movement. We are eager to pursue funding for randomized control trials (RCTs) and longitudinal studies in particular; there is significant need for such studies in the social prescribing literature, and both will help create a nuanced perspective on how social prescribing can be best incorporated into our healthcare system. 

    Relatedly, and to ensure that social prescribing programs are evaluated consistently and accurately, robust guidelines for research need to be established. These guidelines would provide standardized metrics for measuring success, best practices for program implementation, and frameworks for comparing results across different studies. With clearer research protocols in place, the healthcare community can generate a more compelling body of evidence that proves social prescribing's value, which will be crucial for scaling it nationally or internationally.

  • One significant, current obstacle to the success of social prescribing may be relative unfamiliarity with the movement in provider and patient communities. This can be remedied through education, a culture of discourse, and invitation for engagement with social prescribing initiatives, and we are committed to creating welcoming environments for all as we share the principles and evidence for social prescribing. 

    A second obstacle may be the perceived difficulty of implementing social prescribing initiatives. While a number of reputable, international organizations have provided toolkits to guide providers on the implementation of social prescribing in their practices (see toolkits), successful implementation still requires high levels of coordination within and outside of the healthcare domain; this may feel challenging to hospitals, practices, and organizations just becoming familiar with social prescribing, and understandably so. 

    In considering implementation of social prescribing initiatives, we reinforce the importance of studying and drawing inspiration from global models of social prescribing, including the link worker model, but also of staying open to innovation in delivery models. As we test and learn from social prescribing pilots around the country, it may be the case that an existing model works particularly well for implementation, or that we discover a new one that integrates well with our current healthcare infrastructure. 

    A third obstacle to the success of social prescribing may be unrealistic expectations for its performance. Like any health intervention, social prescribing will not be the cure for all illnesses, but it will be highly effective for many - as long as we are open to learning from research, data, and patient stories.

Social Prescribing USA

  • Social Prescribing USA is currently a fiscally-sponsored project of the Social Good Fund. We intend to seek independent 501c(3) status this year upon successful fundraising efforts.

  • We are based in the Bay Area in California, but our team and partners are distributed in many states throughout the country.