Abstract

We agree with Mulligan's central argument but want to offer some notes of caution from the English context. We note that social prescribing is an idea rather than a coherent intervention, and different interpretations can lead to differing models, outputs and outcomes. We argue that a linear model to transit people from primary care to the community is flawed and narrow and instead pose a two-pillar approach where social prescribing is the link between personalized care and community development. It is, we think, only by robustly defending this model throughout scaling that pitfalls can be avoided and Mulligan's vision achieved.