A study across 11 Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services found modest improvements in behaviour and resilience, but no clear reduction in anxiety, depression or stress.
A new study published in European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry suggests that social prescribing may offer some young people a useful bridge while they wait for specialist mental health care in England. The research, carried out across 11 Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, found that the approach was linked to modest gains in behaviour and resilience, but not to clear reductions in anxiety, depression or stress.
Social prescribing is a non-clinical model in which a Link Worker spends time with a young person to understand what matters to them and then helps connect them with community-based support. In the study, that support ranged from sport and creative activities to peer groups, volunteering and practical services. Dr Daniel Hayes, one of the study authors, told Theravive that the team wanted to know whether the model could be used safely and effectively for young people during a period when they might otherwise receive little structured help.
The research involved 558 young people aged 11 to 18. Of those, 225 received usual waiting-list care, while 333 were offered social prescribing after the pathway had been introduced at their service. Participants completed questionnaires at the start of the study and again after three and six months, allowing researchers to track changes in anxiety, depression, stress, emotional and behavioural difficulties, resilience and wellbeing. Young people who took part in the social prescribing pathway attended about five Link Worker sessions on average.
According to the study findings reported in the journal and in the medRxiv preprint version published earlier this year, the programme did not appear to cause harm. Adverse events did occur during the study, but the researchers said none were judged to have been caused by the social prescribing pathway itself. Instead, they were more likely to reflect the pressures of waiting for treatment, including worsening symptoms.
The clearest benefits were seen in broader functioning rather than in symptom scores. The study reported small improvements in conduct problems, hyperactivity or inattention, peer relationships and prosocial behaviour, alongside gains in resilience, including self-esteem, problem-solving and participation in community life. However, the researchers found no evidence that the intervention reduced anxiety, depression or perceived stress more than usual care over six months.
The programme was also viewed positively by staff involved in delivery. Link Workers and CAMHS practitioners rated it highly for acceptability, feasibility and suitability, while young people’s responses were generally neutral to positive. The authors said this pattern suggests that social prescribing may first help by restoring connection to activities, relationships and practical support, rather than by acting as a direct substitute for clinical therapy.
Dr Hayes cautioned against seeing the results as a fix for long waiting lists. The study suggests social prescribing may have a place as an interim support offer for some young people, particularly those who are socially withdrawn, struggling with routines or losing confidence. But the researchers stressed that it should be considered an addition to, not a replacement for, evidence-based mental health treatment. In that sense, the study points to social prescribing as a possible stabilising measure while young people wait, rather than as a solution to the wider shortage of specialist care.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical judgment, advice, diagnosis, or treatment.
