Abstract
Objectives We aimed to describe the characteristics of children and young people referred to social prescribing across the UK and understand what social prescribing looks like for these young people. Additionally, we aimed to explore whether access to and experiences of social prescribing vary with age and have changed from 2017 to 2025. Overall, we aimed to identify whether social prescribing reduces or exacerbates health inequalities among children and young people, and whether this has changed over time. Design Analysis of social prescribing electronic health records Setting Social prescribing hubs and services across the UK that use Access Elemental (a cloud-based social prescribing platform) Participants 52,585 individuals referred to social prescribing in 2017-2025 aged 4-25 years (mean=20.04, SD=4.71), of whom 57% were female, 39% male, <2% were in other gender groups, and 3% did not disclose their gender Primary and secondary outcome measures We summarised the characteristics of young people and described the care pathway received. We then used regression models to test whether these factors differed by age and over time. Results Most individuals were aged 18 and over, 91% lived in urban areas and 58% lived in the top three most deprived deciles of the UK. Most were referred by GPs or other allied health workers (79%) and mental health was the leading reason for referral (44%). The typical pathway included 4.64 social prescribing contacts (SD=7.70) totalling 66 minutes (SD=108), with 34% receiving an onward referral to community support. The average age of those referred to social prescribing increased over time. Conclusions Our findings indicate that social prescribing currently has limited reach for those under 18 and this disparity may be increasing. It was promising that children and young people referred to social prescribing were more likely to live in deprived areas. However, given current findings, more work is needed to increase the reach of social prescribing for children and young people across the UK.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Analysis of these routine data was approved by University College London Research Ethics Committee (project 23909/002).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Access Elemental data cannot be shared publicly. Code for the analyses is available from JKB on request.
Funder Information Declared
