15 sources: 6 meta-analyses, 9 systematic reviews
Social · Practice
Explore Social Prescribing and Community Referrals
A referral or link-worker contact into local groups and activities: one way to carry out what the social-prescribing reviews studied. Dubbeldeman 2024 reports a positive influence on mental health and wellbeing; Cooper 2022 reports that robust conclusions cannot yet be made.
Beta content: this dimension's review set is version 0.9-beta and upgrades in place after the Round-2 internal reviews.
4 of 18 sources behind this entry were read from the abstract only; they are marked in the sources list.
one-time-then-ongoing
Beginner-friendlyIn-person or via health services
Before you start
Availability is uneven; not a clinical service
When to seek a professional
- Persistent loneliness or isolation accompanied by low mood, hopelessness, loss of interest, or withdrawal lasting 2+ weeks: encourage contact with a primary care provider or mental health professional
- Thoughts of self-harm or that life is not worth living: direct to crisis line / emergency services immediately
How to do it
One referral or link worker contact to start, then engage with matched activities
The research behind this entry does not establish an amount, so this is a practical starting point rather than a research-backed number.
Older adultsFor most adultsPeople facing isolation
What the evidence says
What the sources say
This practice is one way to carry out what the social-prescribing sources on the concept entry (soc.digital-and-social-prescribing) studied: referral into community groups and activities. Dubbeldeman 2024 (systematic review) reports a positive influence of social prescribing on participants' mental health and wellbeing, with loneliness and social connectedness mediating it; Staras 2024 reports improvements in social connection and reductions in loneliness; Cooper 2022 reports that robust conclusions on the effectiveness of social prescribing for mental health outcomes cannot be made; Sachs 2024 reports small to moderate effects of nature-based social prescribing, with longer interventions showing greater promise. The full account, source by source, is on the concept entry this practice links to (soc.digital-and-social-prescribing).
Common misconceptions
- Myth: social prescribing is a medical cure. Reality: it is a signposting pathway to community activities.
- Myth: it works the same everywhere. Reality: availability and quality vary widely.
What we won't claim
- Do not present this practice as a treatment or cure for clinical depression, anxiety disorders, or diagnosable loneliness-related conditions
- Do not claim it replaces professional mental-health care
- Do not promise it will prevent disease or extend lifespan for any individual
- Do not present social prescribing as a medical treatment
15 sources: 6 meta-analyses, 9 systematic reviews
- Agreement
- Direction recorded for 0 of 15 sources; not yet recorded for the rest.
- The claim's outcome
- Outcome not yet recorded
- Certainty
- No source states a certainty rating.
- Authors
- Sources share authors: Chiungjung Huang (first author of 2 sources); Chiungjung Huang (senior author of 2 sources).
- How the sources were read
- Some sources are based on abstracts, not full texts.
What each source measured and concluded (15)
meta-analysis · 2025
Hansen et al. (2025) — Digital bridges to social connection: A systematic review and meta-analysis of digital interventions for loneliness and social isolation
- What it measured
- Loneliness and social isolation
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=40 RCTs involving 6062 participants
systematic review · 2022
Sen et al. (2022) — The use of digital technology for social wellbeing reduces social isolation in older adults: A systematic review.
- What it measured
- Social isolation and social wellbeing (technology use)
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review (narrative analysis, PRISMA)
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 25 articles
systematic review · 2024
Sachs et al. (2024) — Connecting through nature: A systematic review of the effectiveness of nature-based social prescribing practices to combat loneliness
- What it measured
- Effectiveness of nature-based social prescribing interventions in reducing loneliness
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Mixed-methods systematic review
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=38 studies
meta-analysis · 2025
Endrino et al. (2025) — Efficacy of technology interventions in preventing depression among older adults experiencing social isolation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- What it measured
- Depression (also anxiety, loneliness, social isolation) with ICT-based interventions
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=13 studies
meta-analysis · 2020
Spano et al. (2020) — Are Community Gardening and Horticultural Interventions Beneficial for Psychosocial Well-Being? A Meta-Analysis
- What it measured
- Psychosocial well-being (social cohesion, social support, trust).
- How it measured it
- Validated scales and subscales (e.g., UCLA Loneliness Scale).
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What the review says it includes
- Meta-analysis of 7 studies
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=not reported participants across 7 studies
- Heterogeneity, as stated
- High heterogeneity among studies due to differences in samples, outcomes, sessions, settings, and measures
systematic review · 2021
Choi et al. (2021) — Trends and Effectiveness of ICT Interventions for the Elderly to Reduce Loneliness: A Systematic Review
- What it measured
- Reduction of loneliness and increase in social participation.
- How it measured it
- Various scales and tools (not explicitly mentioned).
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review of 23 studies
- Heterogeneity, as stated
- Heterogeneous interventions complicate drawing conclusions.
systematic review · 2022
Cooper et al. (2022) — Effectiveness and active ingredients of social prescribing interventions targeting mental health: a systematic review
- What it measured
- Mental health and well-being.
- How it measured it
- Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (validated).
- Its conclusion, in its own words
- “Robust conclusions on the effectiveness of social prescribing for mental health-related outcomes cannot be made.”
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=5036 participants across 17 studies
systematic review · 2024
Dubbeldeman et al. (2024) — Intervention Characteristics and Mechanisms and Their Relationship with the Influence of Social Prescribing: A Systematic Review
- What it measured
- Mental health and wellbeing.
- How it measured it
- (Short) Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (validated), ONS Personal Wellbeing Scale (validated), self-report measures.
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review of 49 papers (7 qualitative, 17 quantitative, 25 mixed method studies)
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=18631 participants across 49 studies
systematic review · 2026
Bergsträsser et al. (2026) — Interventions against loneliness and social isolation in older adults– a systematic review
- What it measured
- Loneliness.
- How it measured it
- UCLA loneliness scale (validated).
- Its conclusion, in its own words
- “The effectiveness of analogue interventions, particularly community-based interventions such as group meetings, social participation programs, and educational or psychological interventions, tended to be superior to that of technological interventions.”
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review of 79 studies
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=not reported participants across 79 studies
- Heterogeneity, as stated
- Limitations: High potential for bias due to self-reporting and lack of blinding, small sample sizes, methodological heterogeneity, limited generalizability due to exclusion criteria.
systematic review · 2024
Staras et al. (2024) — An evaluation of the role of social identity processes for enhancing health outcomes within UK‐based social prescribing initiatives designed to increase social connection and reduce loneliness: A systematic review
- What it measured
- Social connectedness and loneliness.
- How it measured it
- Campaign to End Loneliness Measurement Tool, UCLA loneliness Scale, De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale.
- Its conclusion, in its own words
- “Overall, this review underscores the importance of SIAH-informed Social Prescribing interventions in enhancing social connectedness, reducing loneliness, and promoting overall health.”
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=3,298 participants across 19 studies
systematic review · 2016
Seabrook et al. (2016) — Social Networking Sites, Depression, and Anxiety: A Systematic Review
- What it measured
- Depression and anxiety in the context of social networking site use
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
meta-analysis · 2017
Huang (2017) — Time Spent on Social Network Sites and Psychological Well-Being: A Meta-Analysis
- What it measured
- Psychological well-being (self-esteem, life satisfaction, loneliness, depression)
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What the review says it includes
- Meta-analysis
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 61 studies, 67 samples; 19,652 participants
meta-analysis · 2020
Huang (2020) — A meta-analysis of the problematic social media use and mental health
- What it measured
- Mental health (well-being and distress indicators)
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What the review says it includes
- Meta-analysis
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 133 independent samples; N=244,676
systematic review · 2020
Gilmour et al. (2020) — Facebook-based social support and health: A systematic review.
- What it measured
- Health outcomes (general health, mental illness, well-being)
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 27 studies
meta-analysis · 2015
Laranjo et al. (2015) — The influence of social networking sites on health behavior change: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- What it measured
- Health behavior change
- How it was read
- screened only, not extracted
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies/RCTs
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 12 studies, 7411 participants (8 RCTs in meta-analysis)
- Heterogeneity, as stated
- Positive effect of SNS interventions on health behavior outcomes (Hedges' g 0.24, 95% CI 0.04-0.43); considerable heterogeneity (I2=84.0%)
Key sources (18) · 3 not counted
Each source below is shown with its study design and a link to the original study, or, where it is not a completed research paper, with what kind of record it is; those are not counted. This is the audit trail.
meta-analysisDigital bridges to social connection: A systematic review and meta-analysis of digital interventions for loneliness and social isolation
systematic reviewThe use of digital technology for social wellbeing reduces social isolation in older adults: A systematic review.
systematic reviewConnecting through nature: A systematic review of the effectiveness of nature-based social prescribing practices to combat loneliness
meta-analysisEfficacy of technology interventions in preventing depression among older adults experiencing social isolation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
meta-analysisAre Community Gardening and Horticultural Interventions Beneficial for Psychosocial Well-Being? A Meta-Analysis
systematic reviewTrends and Effectiveness of ICT Interventions for the Elderly to Reduce Loneliness: A Systematic Review
systematic reviewEffectiveness and active ingredients of social prescribing interventions targeting mental health: a systematic review
systematic reviewIntervention Characteristics and Mechanisms and Their Relationship with the Influence of Social Prescribing: A Systematic Review
Conference abstractDigital Interventions for Social Isolation and Loneliness among Older Adults: A Systematic Review
systematic reviewInterventions against loneliness and social isolation in older adults– a systematic review
systematic reviewAn evaluation of the role of social identity processes for enhancing health outcomes within UK‐based social prescribing initiatives designed to increase social connection and reduce loneliness: A systematic review
systematic reviewSocial Networking Sites, Depression, and Anxiety: A Systematic Review
meta-analysisTime Spent on Social Network Sites and Psychological Well-Being: A Meta-Analysis
meta-analysisA meta-analysis of the problematic social media use and mental health
PreprintRelationships between arts participation, social cohesion, and wellbeing: An integrative review and conceptual model
PreprintIntervention Characteristics and Mechanisms and their Relationship with the Influence of Social Prescribing: a Systematic Review
systematic reviewFacebook-based social support and health: A systematic review.
meta-analysisThe influence of social networking sites on health behavior change: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Why do some records show a record type instead of a study design?
A study design is shown for a completed, peer-reviewed paper. A registered protocol, a preprint, a conference abstract, a referee report or a book chapter has not been through peer review as a finished paper, so it is labelled for what it is, and it is counted in no source count. Where a record could not be confirmed as a completed paper at all, it says so rather than guessing. They all stay in the list, and their DOI still resolves, because the count of what was screened is part of the audit trail.
- Protocol / registration A registered plan for a review or trial, not its results.
- Preprint Posted by its authors before peer review.
- Conference abstract A conference summary rather than a peer-reviewed paper.
- Peer-review report A referee's report on a paper, not the paper itself.
- Guideline / position stand A recommendation derived from evidence, which is a step further from the data than the evidence itself.
- Book chapter A chapter in a scholarly book rather than a journal paper.
- Type not recorded Our record does not say what kind of publication this is, so it is counted in no source count. That is a gap in our data, not a judgement about the research.
“Abstract only” means the review read that paper’s abstract, not its full text; “screened only” means it was included at re-screening and not extracted. Both stay in the trail with their DOI, because how a source was read is part of the audit.
Explore all 367 studies in Social →
The full evidence base this focus area draws on, every study with its design and DOI.What it is for
Feel less lonelyFeel more connected to peopleFeel part of a community