New Study Looks At The Effectiveness Of Youth Social Prescribing While Waiting For Treatment

A new study published in European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry looked at the effectiveness and implementation of youth social prescribing for young people awaiting support in England.

“Our study examined whether social prescribing could provide useful support to young people while they were waiting for treatment from Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS),” study author Dr. Daniel Hayes told us. “Social prescribing involves a Link Worker spending time with a young person to understand what matters to them and helping them access appropriate non-clinical support. This might include sport, creative activities, peer groups, volunteering or practical services. The support was personalized rather than based on a standard menu of activities.”

The research team wanted to establish whether this approach was safe and workable within routine mental health services, and whether it was associated with improvements in young people’s mental health, day-to-day functioning, wellbeing and resilience during the waiting period.

The evidence on social prescribing for young people awaiting mental health care was too limited for the research team to make confident predictions about the results, though more broadly there is promising evidence it may help with aspects such as wellbeing and loneliness. 

“We therefore did not begin with a firm expectation that it would improve particular outcomes,” Dr. Hayes told us. “Instead, we examined a broad range of measures including anxiety, depression, stress, emotional and behavioural difficulties, resilience and wellbeing to establish where, if anywhere, changes might emerge.”

The waiting period for mental health care is often treated as though nothing clinically important is happening until treatment begins. In reality, it can be an extremely difficult period for young people and their families. Symptoms may worsen, routines and relationships can be disrupted, and families are frequently left trying to manage with very little structured support.

At the same time, social prescribing was beginning to be introduced into some CAMHS waiting-list pathways without much robust evidence about its safety or effectiveness for young people.

“We therefore saw a clear need to evaluate what happened when this approach was used in real services, rather than assuming that evidence from adult social prescribing would automatically apply to children and adolescents,” Dr. Hayes told us.

The research team conducted a large, prospective evaluation across 11 CAMHS services in England. It included 558 young people aged between 11 and 18. The usual support available while waiting was received by 225, and 333 were offered social prescribing after the pathway had been introduced at their service.

Young people completed questionnaires when they entered the study and again after three and six months. Anxiety and depression, stress, emotional and behavioural difficulties, resilience and broader wellbeing were measured. The researchers also collected information about how much support young people received and asked young people, Link Workers and CAMHS staff about the acceptability and practicality of the programme.

Participants who engaged with social prescribing attended approximately five Link Worker sessions on average. The research team then modelled changes over time while accounting for factors including age, gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic circumstances.

“We found no evidence that social prescribing caused harm,” Dr. Hayes told us. “Although adverse events occurred during the study, none were judged to have been caused by the social-prescribing pathway. Rather, it was likely due to young people waiting for treatment, such as worsening symptoms.”

Young people who received social prescribing showed modest improvements in their overall emotional and behavioural functioning over six months. The changes were particularly evident in conduct difficulties, hyperactivity or inattention, peer problems and prosocial behaviour.

“We also found improvements in resilience, including aspects of self-esteem, problem-solving and participation in community life,” Dr. Hayes told us. “However, we did not find evidence that social prescribing reduced anxiety, depression or perceived stress more than usual waiting-list care over the six-month period. The improvements we observed were small rather than dramatic.”

The programme was rated highly for acceptability, feasibility and appropriateness by Link Workers and CAMHS practitioners. Young people’s responses were generally neutral to positive

“The overall pattern was not entirely surprising, but it was informative,” Dr. Hayes told us. “The fact that we saw improvements in resilience, peer functioning and behaviour, but not in anxiety or depression, supports the idea that social prescribing may initially work by helping young people reconnect with activities, relationships and sources of support. Those changes may occur before any measurable reduction in clinical symptoms.”

Dr. Hayes also believes it underlines the importance of measuring more than anxiety and depression and that an intervention can help a young person function better or cope more effectively without necessarily producing an immediate change in their symptom score.

“At the same time, the small size of the effects is important,” Dr. Hayes told us. “These findings should not be interpreted as evidence that social prescribing resolves the difficulties facing young people on mental health waiting lists. The results suggest that social prescribing could form part of an interim support offer for some young people waiting for specialist mental health treatment.”

Dr. Hayes believes it may be particularly relevant for young people experiencing social withdrawal, disrupted routines, reduced participation, peer difficulties or weakened confidence and coping. However, it should be regarded as an additional form of support, not as a replacement for evidence-based psychological treatment.

“Social prescribing should not become a way of making long waiting lists appear acceptable. Young people still need timely access to appropriate clinical care,” Dr. Hayes told us. “Its potential value is as a bridge: offering a supportive relationship, practical help and opportunities for connection during a period when young people might otherwise receive very little structured assistance. The distinction matters. Our results indicate that social prescribing may help stabilize some aspects of a young person’s life while they wait, but it does not remove the need to address the underlying shortage of specialist mental health provision.”

Categories: Anxiety , Depression , Teens | Tags: anxiety, depression, teens