Effects of Social Prescribing on Mental, Physical, and Social Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Trials

Importance: Social prescribing is implemented to address unmet social needs and improve health, but expansion has outpaced evidence from randomized trials. Objective: To quantify the effects of social prescribing on mental, physical, and social health outcomes in adults. Data Sources: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, AMED, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, NHS EED, CEA registry, clinicaltrials.gov, OpenGrey, and WHO ICTRP (English language). Trials published from 1992 through 2022 were identified from 23 reviews, supplemented by searches from January 2023 through September 2025. Study Selection: Randomized trials comparing usual care or waitlist with interventions facilitating connection to community-based resources delivered by non-health care professionals. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Pairs of reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2. Random-effects meta-analyses pooled mean differences or standardized mean differences as Hedges g with 95% CIs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mental health, blood pressure, metabolic and anthropometric outcomes, physical activity, loneliness and social isolation, quality of life, health care use, and adverse events. Results: Thirty-three randomized trials involving 13 714 participants were included. High risk of bias was identified in 40% of trials. Social prescribing was associated with reduced depressive symptoms (7 trials; 1087 participants; standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.23; 95% CI, -0.38 to -0.08), lower systolic blood pressure (11 trials; 2817 participants; mean difference, -2.69 mm Hg; 95% CI, -5.36 to -0.02), increased physical activity (7 trials; 3409 participants; SMD, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.25), and improved quality of life (10 trials; 3134 participants; SMD, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.01-0.29). No clear benefit was found for anxiety, loneliness and social isolation, glycemic control, blood lipids, anthropometric outcomes, or health care use. One trial reported a process evaluation, 7 included economic evaluations, and adverse events were infrequently reported. Conclusions and Relevance: Social prescribing was associated with modest improvements in depressive symptoms, systolic blood pressure, physical activity, and quality of life. Evidence was lacking for other claimed benefits, and process and economic evaluations were uncommon, identifying priorities for future trials.