Patterns and predictors of outcome monitoring amongst link workers: Learnings from the National Social Prescribing Link Worker Survey 2025

Abstract

Background Effective outcome monitoring by Social Prescribing Link Workers (SPLWs) is critical for understanding the impact of social prescribing (SP) interventions. Despite national guidance mandating outcome reporting via the Social Prescribing Information Standard, it is unclear how consistently outcomes are measured across services in England. Methods This analysis used data from the 2025 National Social Prescribing Link Worker Survey, comprising responses from SPLWs (N = 409) who hold a caseload and are based in England. This analysis focused specifically on the questions pertaining to impact monitoring and its predictors. Descriptive analyses and both multiple logistic and original regression analyses sequentially adjusted for confounders were used to explore patterns of outcome monitoring, predictors of reporting behaviour, and potential solutions to enhance data collection. Results Just 57.5% of SPLWs reported recording or monitoring patient-level outcomes “often” or “very often,” and 45.5% did so for service-level outcomes. Only 48.7% reported using quantitative outcome measures such as ONS4, while 91% captured qualitative data. Among those using outcome measures, 61% used ONS4, with additional use of MyCaW, PAM, and Wellbeing Star. Outcomes were typically recorded at the beginning and end of patient interactions (60.2%), but 20.4% collected data at every session. Outcome reporting was not significantly predicted by education, training, job seniority, or most demographic variables. However, those aware of the SP Information Standard were 2.3 times more likely to report outcomes (OR = 2.29, 95% CI [1.53, 3.42]), and those who shared outcomes with managers or other stakeholders were over six times more likely to monitor impact (OR = 6.03, 95% CI [2.93, 12.43]). SPLWs who reported outcomes being used to inform investment decisions were 1.8 times more likely to monitor outcomes (OR = 1.76, 95% CI [1.03, 3.02]). Notably, those with access to patient records were significantly less likely to use outcome measures (OR = 0.22, 95% CI [0.11, 0.41]). Conclusions Despite modest improvements since 2023, SPLWs’ monitoring of SP outcomes remains inconsistent and below national standards recommended in the SP Information Standard. There was little differentiation in reporting patterns by demographics or job role, but findings suggest increasing awareness of the SP Information Standard and simplifying reporting processes may support better data quality. These findings provide benchmarks to inform future policy and practice aimed at standardising SP outcome reporting nationally.