“…Of those schemes with evaluation (n=40), 17 employed quantitative methods which included eight randomised controlled trials, 16 employed qualitative methods and seven employed mixed methods. In another review of 15 evaluations of social prescribing programmes, most were reported as being limited by poor design and rated as a having a high risk of bias (Bickerdike et al 2017). In a review of the evidence of social prescribing to reduce the demand for health services and its cost implications, evidence revealed considerable reduction in demand on primary and secondary care, but concluded that the quality of evidence is weak, and without further evaluation, it is be premature to conclude that a proof of concept for demand reduction had been established .…”