Social prescribing for people recovering from treatment for cancer: a systematic scoping review

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Social prescribing (SP) has emerged as a non-medical strategy to enhance cancer survivors' well-being by addressing psychosocial challenges through diverse interventions. Despite growing evidence of benefits, a comprehensive synthesis of intervention effectiveness and implementation barriers remains limited. This scoping review updates current evidence on SP interventions, outcomes, and challenges among cancer survivors. PURPOSE: To identify and map SP interventions for post-treatment cancer survivors, assess their impact on well-being and quality of life, and summarise barriers and recommendations for improved accessibility and sustainability. METHODS: Peer-reviewed studies involving adult cancer survivors that evaluated SP-related interventions with psychological, emotional, or quality of life outcomes were included. Reviews, editorials, conference abstracts, and non-English studies were excluded. Three databases (Scopus, PubMed, APA PsycINFO) were searched up to March 31, 2025. Data extraction captured study design, intervention type, setting, population, outcomes, and reported benefits or limitations. Narrative synthesis followed PRISMA-ScR and SWiM guidelines. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies assessed seven intervention types: gardening, peer support, expressive writing, art therapy, physical activity, blue prescriptions, and spiritual care. These interventions enhanced emotional resilience, reduced stress, fostered social connections, and improved coping. Reported barriers included limited access to resources, participant engagement, professional support, and long-term sustainability. CONCLUSION: SP interventions provide significant psychological and emotional benefits for cancer survivors. Addressing accessibility, engagement, and sustainability challenges is essential. Future research should explore hybrid and digital SP models with structured professional involvement to improve reach and effectiveness.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.