Many factors such as declining physical function, low socioeconomic status and unemployment play a role in the complex health and social needs of older adults. While healthcare providers can assist in treating health conditions, non-clinical interventions are most likely needed to meet their social needs and improve wellbeing. Social prescribing has been introduced to help primary care providers and other connectors meet patient's social needs that contribute to poor health and inequalities. With the increasing recognition of these complex challenges, decision-makers need to know which social prescribing interventions or social prescriptions are effective for older adults. To map the available evidence on the effectiveness of social prescribing interventions and social prescriptions addressing a non-medical health-related need for older adults in clinical and community settings. We searched the following databases from inception until November 14, 2023, with no language restrictions: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, EBM Reviews, Elsevier Scopus, Epistemonikos, CABI CAB Direct, NIHR PROSPERO, WHO Global Index Medicus, Clarivate Web of Science Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Conference Proceedings, Clarivate Korean Citation Index (KCI), Clarivate SciELO Citation Index and Google Scholar via Harzing Publish or Perish. Titles and abstracts and full text of potentially eligible articles were independently screened in duplicate for systematic reviews and studies with concurrent control groups assessing the effectiveness of social prescribing and social prescription interventions on the wellbeing of older adults. Conflicts were resolved through consensus. We developed and pilot-tested a data collection form in EPPI-Reviewer. Data was extracted and coded individually by reviewers based on an intervention-outcome framework which was also used to define the dimensions of the evidence and gap map. Data extraction was validated by a second reviewer for 20%. We assessed the quality of reviews using the AMSTAR2 tool. The quality of primary studies was not assessed. We included 662 articles (430 primary studies, 232 reviews) that assessed the effectiveness of social prescribing interventions or social prescriptions targeting non-medical health-related social needs of older adults to improve their health and wellbeing. Over 65% of the articles were published in 2019 or later.AMSTAR2 quality was rated as critically low for 55%, low for 31%, moderate for 6% and high for only 4% of systematic reviews. Of the included primary studies, 48% were randomized controlled trials and 52% were non-randomized studies.Most of the evidence was from high-income countries (78% of reviews and 93% of primary studies), few from upper-middle (25% of reviews and 5% of primary studies), and lower-middle (9% of reviews and 3% of primary studies) countries, and none from low-income countries (0%). The most common intervention types identified were psychosocial (e.g. social and emotional support interventions), with 81% of reviews and 63% of primary studies including these interventions, lifestyle (exercise on prescription) with 45% of reviews and 30% of primary studies including these interventions, and arts-based (museums, galleries, arts & crafts), with 29% of reviews and 20% of primary studies including these interventions. These were followed by material support in 13% of reviews and 7% of primary studies, and nature-based interventions in 10% of reviews and 4% of primary studies. Ninety-eight percent of the reviews and 95% of the primary studies focused on assessing the impact on individual outcomes (e.g. participant wellbeing/quality of life), with 41% of reviews and 47% of primary studies assessing process outcomes (e.g. participant satisfaction), and 27% of both reviews and primary studies looking at health system outcomes (e.g. health/social service use). Eleven percent of reviews and primary studies looked at adverse effects, and no studies assessed health equity as a community outcome.Key characteristics of social prescribing interventions or social prescriptions were described in few included articles; codesign of the interventions in 6% of reviews and 15% of primary studies, while participant empowerment was described in 24% of reviews and 19% of primary studies.Most articles focused on a population at risk of or experiencing inequity (91% of reviews and 96% of primary studies). Less than 10% of both reviews and primary studies conducted any equity analysis to assess differential effects for populations experiencing inequities across factors such as age, gender or ethnicity. Most of the available evidence on social prescribing and social prescription was on psychosocial and health system interventions; there is limited research on material support and nature-based interventions. Furthermore, despite the aims of social prescribing or social prescription to empower communities and reduce health inequalities, there are few studies that assess community-level outcomes or adverse effects. There is a need for more research in low-middle-income countries and for high-quality reviews. This map can help identify priorities for further research and promote the use of existing evidence in policy and practice. EGM = evidence and gap map.GP = general practitioner.LGBTQIA2S+: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (or sometimes questioning), intersex, asexual, and two-spirited.PICO: population, intervention, comparison, outcome. PROGRESS-Plus: Place of residence (urban/rural), Race/ethnicity/culture and language, Occupation, Gender or sex, Religion, Occupation, Socioeconomic status, Social capital and Plus factors.WHO = World Health Organization. Declarative title: Evidence and gap map on social prescribing for older adults shows most programs have focused on psychosocial and lifestyle programs with few studies on material support and nature-based programs, little focus on equity issues, and a need for better quality systematic reviews. The EGM in brief: Mapping the evidence on the effectiveness of social prescribing interventions and social prescriptions addressing a non-medical need for older adults shows that many of the systematic reviews are of critically low quality, most articles come from high-income countries, and few articles, if any, look at material-support and nature-based interventions, health equity as a community-level outcome or assess adverse effects. What is this EGM about? Many older adults experience health disparities that are often associated with complex health and social issues. Social needs may not be routinely addressed by healthcare providers but are equally important as health conditions. Social prescribing is an intervention that can help primary care providers and other connectors to meet these social needs by connecting older adults to social supports in the community. Decision-makers need to know which social prescribing interventions and social prescriptions are effective at addressing a non-medical need in this population. What is the aim of this EGM? To show available evidence from systematic reviews and primary studies on the effect of social prescribing or social prescriptions that address a non-medical need for older adults in clinical and community settings. What studies are included? This EGM includes 662 articles (232 systematic reviews and 430 primary studies) that assessed and reported the effect of interventions which connect individuals to non-clinical services and activities to improve their health and wellbeing. Studies could be in any language and come from any region. What are the main findings of this gap map? Most of the evidence is from high-income countries, with very little from upper- and lower-middle-income, and none from low-income countries. The majority of evidence has been published in 2019 or later, and over half of the systematic reviews are of critically low quality. The most reported interventions are psychosocial support interventions (81% of reviews, 63% of primary studies), with social and emotional support interventions being the most common (59% of reviews, 41% of primary studies). Lifestyle interventions, such as exercise (39% of reviews, 25% of primary studies), and arts-based interventions including museums, galleries, arts & crafts (20% of reviews, 11% of primary studies) were also commonly reported. Material support (13% of reviews, 7% of primary studies) and nature interventions (10% of reviews, 4% of primary studies) were among the least common. The focus of most studies was to improve individual outcomes (e.g. participant wellbeing/quality of life), that were assessed in over 90% of both reviews and primary studies. Process outcomes (e.g. participant satisfaction) were assessed in 41% of reviews and 47% of primary studies, and health system outcomes (e.g. health/social service use) in 27% of reviews and 27% of primary studies. Few studies assessed adverse effects (11% of reviews and 11% of primary studies) or community-level outcomes (13% of reviews, 9% of primary studies), and none assessed health equity as a community outcome. Equity assessment showed that over 90% of both reviews and primary studies focused on populations experiencing health inequities across factors such as gender, ethnicity, income, rurality or age-associated frailty. Only 10% conducted analysis to assess whether findings varied across different groups of populations experiencing inequities based on factors such as gender, age, or ethnicity. What do the findings of the map mean? The evidence on social prescribing interventions and social prescriptions is concentrated on psychosocial and health system interventions with less on material support and nature-based interventions. Few studies assessed community-level outcomes and adverse effects. There is a need for more high-quality research as many included systematic reviews are of critically low quality. This map can guide interest holders to identify interventions that connect older adults to non-clinical services and can help researchers and funders consider areas of major gaps as priorities for further research. How up-to-date is this EGM? The authors searched for studies up until November 2023.