Skip to main content

A realist evaluation of social prescribing: an exploration into the context and mechanisms underpinning a pathway linking primary care with the voluntary sector

  • Marcello Bertotti (a1), Caroline Frostick (a2), Patrick Hutt (a3), Ratna Sohanpal (a3) and Dawn Carnes (a4)...

This article adopts a realist approach to evaluate a social prescribing pilot in the areas of Hackney and City in London (United Kingdom). It unpacks the contextual factors and mechanisms that influenced the development of this pilot for the benefits of GPs, commissioners and practitioners, and reflects on the realist approach to evaluation as a tool for the evaluation of health interventions. Primary care faces considerable challenges including the increase in long-term conditions, GP consultation rates, and widening health inequalities. With its emphasis on linking primary care to non-clinical community services via a social prescribing coordinator (SPC), some models of social prescribing could contribute to reduce the burden on primary care, tackle health inequalities and encourage people to make greater use of non-clinical forms of support. This realist analysis was based on qualitative interviews with users, commissioners, a GP survey, focus groups and learning events to explore stakeholders’ experience. To enable a detailed analysis, we adapted the realist approach by subdividing the social prescribing pathway into stages, each with contextual factors, mechanisms and outcomes. SPCs were pivotal to the effective functioning of the social prescribing service and responsible for the activation and initial beneficial impact on users. Although social prescribing shows significant potential for the benefit of patients and primary care, several challenges need to be considered and overcome, including ‘buy in’ from some GPs, branding, and funding for the third sector in a context where social care cuts are severely affecting the delivery of health care. With its emphasis on context and mechanisms, the realist evaluation approach is useful in understanding how to identify and improve health interventions, and analyse in greater detail the contribution of different stakeholders. As the SPC is central to social prescribing, more needs to be done to understand their role conceptually and practically.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      A realist evaluation of social prescribing: an exploration into the context and mechanisms underpinning a pathway linking primary care with the voluntary sector
      Available formats
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      A realist evaluation of social prescribing: an exploration into the context and mechanisms underpinning a pathway linking primary care with the voluntary sector
      Available formats
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      A realist evaluation of social prescribing: an exploration into the context and mechanisms underpinning a pathway linking primary care with the voluntary sector
      Available formats
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (, which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Corresponding author
Correspondence to: Dr Marcello Bertotti, Institute for Health and Human Development, University of East London, Water Lane, Stratford, London E15 4LZ, UK. Email:
Hide All
Arain, I. 2015: Keep Well in NHS Highland. Mid-term evaluation of the Keep Well Programme in NHS Highland. Inverness: NHS Highland Keep Well Programme Steering Group.
Bandura, A. 1986: The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 4, 359373.
Bertotti, M., Frostick, C., Findlay, G., Netuveli, G., Tong, J., Harden, A., Renton, A., Carnes, D., Sohanpal, R. and Hull, S. 2015: Social prescribing: integrating GP and community assets for health. Report commissioned by Health Foundation (shine award), London.
Bickerdike, L., Booth, A., Wilson, P.M., et al. 2017: Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence. British Medical Journal Open 7, e013384.
Brandling, J. and House, W. 2007: Investigating into the feasibility of a social prescribing service in primary care: a pilot project. Bath: University of Bath and Bath and North East Somerset NHS Primary Care Trust.
Byng, R., Norman, I, Redfen, S. and Jones, R. 2008: Exposing the key functions of a complex intervention for shared care in mental health: case study of a process evaluation. BMC Health Services Research 8, 274.
Carnes, D., Sohanpal, R., Matthur, R., Homer, K., Hull, S., Bertotti, M., Frostick, C., Findlay, G., Netuveli, G., Tong, J., Harden, A. and Renton, A. 2015: City and Hackney social prescribing service. Evaluation report commissioned by City and Hackney Clinical Commissioning Group.
Cawston, P. 2011: Social Prescribing in very deprived areas. British Journal of General Practice 61, 350.
Centre for Review and Dissemination. 2015: Evidence to inform the commissioning of social prescribing. York: The University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.
City and Hackney CCG. 2013: The business case for Social prescribing in City and Hackney. London: City and Hackney Clinical Commissioning Group.
Coulter, A and Ellins, J. 2006: Patient-focused interventions: a review of the evidence. London: The Health Foundation.
Curtis, L. 2014: Unit costs of health and social care 2011. Personal Social Services Research Unit, 2011.
Dayson, C., Bashir, N. and Pearson, S. 2013: From dependence to independence: emerging lessons from the Rotherham Social Prescribing Pilot. Summary report, Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University.
Department of Health. 2006: White paper. Our health, our care, our say: a new direction for community services Crown Copyright.
Department of Health. 2013: Improving quality of life for people with long term conditions. Retrieved 20 August 2015 from
Fletcher, A., Jamal, F., Moore, G., Evans, R.E. and Murphy, S. 2016: Realist complex intervention science: applying realist principles across all phases of the Medical Research Council framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions. Evaluation. 118.
Friedli, L., Themessl-Huber, M. and Buthchar, M. 2012: Evaluation of Dundee Equally Well sources of Support: Social Prescribing in Maryfield, Evaluation Report Four.
Friedli, L. and Watson, S. 2004: Social prescribing for mental health. Durham: Northern Centre for Mental Health.
Grant, C., Goodenough, T., Harvey, I. and Hine, C. 2000: A randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a referrals facilitator between primary care and the voluntary sector. British Medical Journal 320, 419423.
Greenhalgh, T., Humphrey, C., Hughes, J., Macfarlane, F., Butler, C. and Pawson, R. 2009: How do you modernize a health service? A realist evaluation of whole-scale transformation in London. Milbank Quarterly 87, 391416.
Greenhalgh, T., Wong, G., Jagosh, J., Greenhalgh, J., Manzano, A., Westhorp, G. and Pawson, R. 2016: Protocol – the RAMESES II study: developing guidance and reporting standards for realist evaluation. British Medical Journal Open, 8.
Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland. 2016: Developing a culture of health. The role of signposting in improving health and wellbeing. Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland and People at the Centre.
Health Education England. 2016: Care navigation: a competency framework. Health Education England and the NHS Constitution, London.
Hibbard, J and Gilburt, H. 2014: Supporting people to manage their health. An introduction to patient activation. A report funded by the King’s Fund, London.
Hutt, P. and Gilmour, S. 2010: Tackling inequalities in general practice. The King’s Fund Research Paper, London.
Innovation Unit. 2016: Wigan Community Link Worker Service Evaluation.
Jagosh, J., Bush, P.L., Salsberg, J., and 2015: A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Public Health 15, 725.
Kimberlee, R. 2015: What is social prescribing? Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal 2, 1.
Kimberlee, R. 2016: What is the value of social prescribing? Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal 3, 2935.
Leone, L. 2008: Realistic evaluation of an ilitice drug deterrence programme. Analysis of a case study. Evaluation 14, 928.
Marchal, B., Van Belle, S., Van Olmen, J. and Hoerée, T. 2012: Is realist evaluation keeping its promise? A literature review of methodological practice in health systems research. Evaluation 18, 192212.
Marmot, M., Allen, J., Goldblatt, P., Boyce, T., McNeish, D., Grady, M. and Geddes, I. 2010: Fair society, healthy lives: strategic review of health inequalities in England post 2010. London: The Marmot Review.
Moore, G. F., Barker, M., Bonell, C., Hardeman, W., O’Cathain, A., Wight, D., Baird, J. 2015: Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council Guidance. British Medical Journal.
Morgan, A. and Ziglio, E. 2010: Revitalising the public health evidence base: an asset model. In Morgan, A., Davies, M. and Ziglio, E., editors, Health assets in a global context. Theory, methods, action. London: Springer, 316.
National Council for Voluntary Sector. 2016: UK Civil Society Almanac 2016. Income from government. Retrieved 9 April 2017 from
National Health Service. 2014: Five year forward view. National Health Service.
National Health Service. 2016: General practice forward view. Royal College of General Practitioners and NHS Health Education England.
Pavey, T.G., Taylor, A.H., Fox, K.R. et al. 2011: Effect of exercise referral schemes in primary care on physical activity and improving health outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. British Medical Journal 343, d6462.
Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. 1997: Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.
Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. 2004: Realist evaluation. Paper funded by the British Cabinet Office.
Polley, M., Bertotti, M., Kimberlee, R., Pilkington, K. and Refsum, C. 2017: A review of the evidecnce of social prescribing on demand reduction. London: Commissioned by NHS England.
Popay, J., kowarzik, U., Mallinson, S., Mackian, S. and Barker, J. 2007: Social problems, primary care and pathways to help and support: addressing health inequalities at the individual level. Part I: the GP perspective. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 61, 966971.
Prochaska, K.O. and Norcross, J.C. 2009: Systems of psychotherapy: a transtheoretical analysis. London, United Kingdom: Cangage Learning.
Raines, R., Fitzpatrick, R., Barratt, H. et al. 2016: Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of service innovations in health care and public health. Health Services and Delivery Research 4.
Rogers, C.R. 1962: The interpersonal relationship: the core of guidance. In Rogers C.R. and Stevens B., editors, Person to person. Lafeyette, CA: Real People Press, 9192.
Social Prescribing Network. 2016: Report of the Annual Social Prescribing Network Conference, 20 January 2016, Park Crescent Conference Centre, London. Co-funded by the University of Westminster, the Wellcome Trust, and the Fit for Work UK Coalition with the support from the College of Medicine.
South, J., Higgins, T.J., Woodall, J. and White, S.M. 2008: Can social prescribing provide the missing link? Primary Health Care Research & Development 9, 310318.
Steadman, K., Thomas, R. and Donnaloja, V. 2017: Social prescribing. A pathway to work? London: Work Foundation.
Tabrizi, J., Wilson, A. and O’Rourke, P. 2010: Customer quality and type 2 diabetes from the patients’ perspective: a cross-sectional study. Journal of Research in Health Sciences 10, 2, 6976.
Thomson, L.J., Camic, P.M. and Chatterjee, H.J. 2015: A review of community referral schemes. Canterbury: Canterbury Christ Church University and University College London.
Torjesen, I. 2016: Social prescribing could help alleviate pressure on GPs. British Medical Journal,
Walker, S. and Thirlwall, C. 2015: Social prescribing. Supporting people in their Communities. Putting you First.
Ward, J. 2016: Social prescribing at a glance. North West England. A scoping report of activity for the North West, NHS Health Education England.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Primary Health Care Research & Development
  • ISSN: 1463-4236
  • EISSN: 1477-1128
  • URL: /core/journals/primary-health-care-research-and-development
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 96
Total number of PDF views: 700 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 479 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 7th December 2017 - 17th July 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.