News

Declaration of interests Saira Afzal reports support for their participation in the current manuscript from the Institute of Public Health Lahore, grants or contracts from the Institute of Public Health Lahore, honoraria for experts, lectures, visiting speakers, and educational seminars, provided by the Dean Institute of Public Health Lahore, support for attending meetings and travel from the Dean Institute of Public Health, Lahore Pakistan, participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for the Pakistan National Bioethics Committee, institutional review board membership for Fatima Jinnah Medical University, ethical review board and data monitoring board membership for the Institute of Public Health Lahore Pakistan and Clinical Research Organization King Edward Medical University, and advisory board membership for the Annals of King Edward Medical University, leadership or fiduciary roles in other board, society, committee or advocacy groups, paid or unpaid, with Pakistan Higher Education Commission Research Committee, Pakistan Medical and Dental Commission Research and Journals Committee, Pakistan National Bioethics Committee, Pakistan Society of Internal Medicine, Pakistan Association of Medical Editors, Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Society, Fellow of Leads International, Fellow of Faculty of Public Health UK, and Fellow of College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan, receipt of computer software and equipment from Bergen University for research writing, and other financial or non-financial interests in the Dean Public Health Institute of Public Health Birdwood Lahore, all outside the submitted work. Introduction Social prescribing is an innovative approach to health care that connects patients to non-clinical services in their local community to support their health and wellbeing.1 These non-clinical services include a wide range of activities such as exercise, volunteering, arts and culture, counselling, befriending, training courses, housing support, benefits, and employment advice.2 Social prescribing can be implemented through various models, tailored to the specific needs of communities and health-care systems.3 In England, the predominant model is the general practitioner (GP)–link worker model where a health-care professional in primary care (usually a GP) refers patients to a link worker (or other similar professionals) who then works with the patient to develop a personalised care plan that connects them to community support and interventions.2 The importance of social prescribing lies in its potential to address the social, emotional, and practical needs of patients that are often inter-related to medical needs but are not covered by clinical treatments, and which form an estimated 20% of GP consultations.4 As such, social prescribing provides a more holistic approach to patient care that complements existing clinical interventions, bridging crucial service gaps. In 2022, it became a formal mandate for every primary care network (a group of neighbouring GP practices6) to provide social prescribing as part of its service,7 and in 2023, the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan included a rising commitment to fund 9000 link workers by 2036–37.8 However, there are concerns that social prescribing might not effectively address health inequalities and could even exacerbate them by disproportionately benefiting less disadvantaged individuals.9,10 Analysis of the roll-out of link workers within Primary Care Networks has reported that the NHS did not meet its target of employing 1000 link workers by 2020–21 and found inequalities geographically, with areas that recorded the greatest need for additional support recording the lowest levels of link worker employment across England.11 However, analysis of data from a large cloud-based social prescribing referral-management platform from over 160 000 patients who had received social prescribing referrals suggested the number of referrals in more deprived areas might be higher than in less deprived areas.2 This finding is echoed in self-reports of social prescribing referrals from older adults in national cohort data, which also showed that those receiving benefits and with lower wealth were more likely to report having received a referral.12 Nonetheless, there are currently no large-scale analyses of how many people have been offered social prescribing through the GP–link worker model and how equitable these referrals have been over time. Before this event, China started using BCG and pertussis vaccines in 1960, then the poliomyelitis vaccine in 1962, measles vaccine in 1965, and Japanese encephalitis vaccine in 1967.5 In 2002, China fully integrated hepatitis B vaccine into the EPI and renamed the programme to the National Immunization Program.6 In 2008, China expanded the EPI by replacing the measles vaccine with the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and adding vaccines for hepatitis A, Japanese encephalitis, and Neisseria meningitidis serogroups A and C. Since 2016, China has reached national coverage of more than 95% for each of the eight EPI vaccines (measles-mumps-rubella, DTP, BCG, poliomyelitis, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, Japanese encephalitis, and Neisseria meningitidis serogroups A and C).7 In the past five decades, declines in reported disease burden associated with EPI vaccines in China have been well documented.8,9 However, comprehensive health impact and economic evaluation of China's EPI in the past 50 years remain unclear.10 The Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium (VIMC) modelled the health impact of vaccination against ten pathogens in 112 low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) from 2000 to 2030, covering three EPI vaccines in China (measles, hepatitis B, and Japanese encephalitis).11 The health impact of all eight EPI vaccines used in China since 1974 has yet to be assessed within the country-specific context.