Rapid Response: Re: Prescribing parkrun: medicalising a walk in the park
Hussain Al-Zubaidi
Lifestyle GP, TV doctor, RCGP Lifestyle & Physical Activity Champion, parkrun Health Partnerships Lead, Leamington PCN Personalised care lead, World AG Triathlete
Dear Editor
We thank the authors for their thoughtful analysis and welcome the chance to discuss the broader implications of “prescribing parkrun” within the context of social prescribing. We agree that parkrun is a remarkable community‐based initiative that demedicalises health promotion, shifting focus away from traditional, command‐driven models toward an empowering, participatory approach. We address several key points raised in the article.
Demedicalising and Empowering through Social Prescribing
Critics argue that using the term “prescribing” implies a top–down model of authority, yet this view overlooks how social prescribing is practised in clinical discussions about group physical activity such as parkrun. The term “prescribing” is aimed at clinicians, legitimising evidence‐based treatment options beyond medications. There is robust evidence that group physical activity improves health outcomes (1), although many clinicians and patients remain unaware of its efficacy compared to medication. By framing physical activity like parkrun as an added treatment option, clinicians support demedicalisation by avoiding unnecessary prescriptions—a practice preferred by patients. Just as forcing medication would be poor practice, dictating behavior is similarly inappropriate and unlikely.
From a patient’s perspective, calling parkrun a prescription is misleading because the event remains free and accessible to all. The term ‘prescribing’ here is meant solely to encourage clinicians to signpost it as a valid option. Facilitating access to this community‐led opportunity to enhance physical and mental health is sound practice, regardless of semantic debates. This aligns with evidence that community‐focused interventions can transform patient engagement by promoting autonomy and self‐directed improvement, especially among marginalised and deprived groups (2).
Evidence of Impact and Cost-Effectiveness
Recent research, including a study by Haake and colleagues from Sheffield Hallam University (3), shows that parkrun participation is linked with statistically significant improvements in life satisfaction over six months. The study reported a weighted, seasonally adjusted increase of 0.26 points in life satisfaction among new participants, with the greatest gains in those previously inactive. The cost‐effectiveness analysis is compelling; benefit‐cost ratios range from 16.7:1 with a conservative estimate to as high as 98.5:1 when broader wellbeing impacts are included. These figures underscore the economic and public health benefits of incorporating social interventions like parkrun into primary care.
Primary Care Engagement and Adoption
It is important to clarify that over 2000 general practices now participate in parkrun practices, not merely 1800 as previously suggested (4). This level of engagement demonstrates that GPs recognise the value of linking patients to community assets. Primary care professionals are championing a shift toward a holistic and preventative approach that de‐emphasises traditional pharmacological treatments in favour of community participation and self‐care.
Countering the Misconception of “Medicalising” Exercise
Critics claiming that “prescribing” parkrun reinforces a hierarchical framework misinterpret social prescribing. Integrating parkrun into primary care promotes a model where community resources, not medications, take centre stage. This approach does not reduce patient autonomy; it provides a flexible, enjoyable option for self‐directed health improvement supported by professional advice. Rather than undermining community exercise, it legitimises parkrun as a vital component of modern, patient‐centred health promotion.
In Summary
In summary, the evidence affirms that parkrun is a paradigm of demedicalisation rather than an overly medicalised intervention. It embodies social prescribing by connecting patients with their communities while delivering measurable improvements in life satisfaction and wellbeing. With over 2000 general practices involved, ‘prescribing’ parkrun is a justified, cost‐effective public health strategy that merits ongoing support and expansion. These findings and practice insights not only reinforce the validity of social prescribing models but also highlight the transformative potential of community‐based health initiatives in reshaping modern primary care. Overall, parkrun integration into primary care offers significant, measurable, and enduring public health advantages globally.
1) Burke, Shauna M., et al. "Group versus individual approach? A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity." Journal of sport & exercise psychology 2 (2006): 19-35. 2) What works: Community engagement and empowerment to address health inequalities - Health Equity Evidence Centre 3) HAAKE, Steve, QUIRK, Helen and BULLAS, Alice (2024). The impact of parkrun on life satisfaction and its cost-effectiveness: A six-month study of parkrunners in the United Kingdom. PLOS Global Public Health, 4 (10). 4) Royal college of GPs 2000 GP surgeries in the UK now registered to parkrun practices 28 March 2025 https://www.rcgp.org.uk/News/2000-GP-surgeries-registered-parkrun-practices
Competing interests: Dr Hussain Al-Zubaidi: Royal College of GPs Lifestyle and Physical activity champion; parkrun Health Partnerships Lead. Dr Ellen Fallows: British Society of Lifestyle Medicine Vice President.
Creating Inclusive, Accessible Communities Through Physical Activity | OT Leader | Committed to Belonging, Health Equity and Occupational Justice
5moI really appreciated the opinion piece and the way you grounded your points in evidence. I’d be really interested to see the issues raised explored more openly with a diverse group. From my experience, many people share Margaret’s perspective but often don’t have the confidence or the right platform to express it. I remember when social prescribing was first introduced and valued what it aimed to achieve. But surely prescribing social activities shouldn’t be the long-term solution. We need to build on what we’ve learned and work alongside communities to create environments where people don’t need a social prescription in the first place. What do you think Lisa Westhorpe ?
Running a non for profit CIC to help the over-50s get healthier and more socially connected through sports participation
5moGreat article and I think the social side of activities like parkrun and our own over 50’s team sports is often over looked.
--
5moGreat article Hussain Al-Zubaidi and Ellen Fallows. Evidence + nuance in explanation for different audiences. Please share widely!
Helping organisations who want to make positive experiences in physical activity the norm for everyone, regardless of background or ability
5moThanks for sharing your reflections. Definitely agree on avoiding semantic debates. Whilst I totally agree that language is important, we can tie ourselves in knots and waste endless resource deciding what to call something without getting on and getting anything done. In my experience, the best way forward is to listen to communities and mirror the language they are most comfortable with. And yes, that means the best language for patients and the best language for HCPs may not always be the same.
Innovation Specialist at F Wood Solutions Ltd @francjwood and @francjwood.bsky.social
5moI was particularly stuck with this, which aligns with #NeighbourhoodHealth and the 10 Year NHS Health Plan: "Facilitating access to this community‐led opportunity to enhance physical and mental health is sound practice, regardless of semantic debates. This aligns with evidence that community‐focused interventions can transform patient engagement by promoting autonomy and self‐directed improvement, especially among marginalised and deprived groups"