Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40138284›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

INcreasing Adolescent social and Community supporT (INACT): Pilot study protocol.

Daniel Hayes, Alexandra Burton, Feifei Bu, Neil Humphrey, Pamela Qualter, Emeline Han, Lou Sticpewich, Joely Wright, Jessica K Bone, Sophia Maguire and 4 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06656663 (INcreasing Adolescent Social and Community SupporT - Pilot), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06656663 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

INcreasing Adolescent Social and Community SupporT - Pilot

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity College, LondonRan2024 to 2025Enrolled78ConditionsLonelinessArmsSocial Prescribing, Signposting
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Daniel HayesResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, Social Biobehavioural Research Group, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4948-3333
Alexandra BurtonResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, Social Biobehavioural Research Group, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4433-3902
Feifei BuResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, Social Biobehavioural Research Group, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Neil HumphreyManchester Institute of Education, School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Pamela QualterManchester Institute of Education, School of Environment, Education and Development, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Emeline HanResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, Social Biobehavioural Research Group, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Lou SticpewichResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, Social Biobehavioural Research Group, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Joely WrightResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, Social Biobehavioural Research Group, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jessica K BoneResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, Social Biobehavioural Research Group, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6019-7066
Sophia MaguireResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, Social Biobehavioural Research Group, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Lucas Caetano Gonzalez UmpierrezResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, Social Biobehavioural Research Group, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Emily StapleyEvidence Based Practice Unit, University College London and the Anna Freud Centre, London, United Kingdom.
Marc S TibberDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5175-3593
Daisy FancourtResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, Social Biobehavioural Research Group, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial prescribing is a mechanism for connecting patients with non-medical forms of support within the community and has been shown to improve loneliness. Yet uptake from young people (YP) has been lower than for adults. That is thought to be the case because young people are less likely to engage with primary care for wellbeing support, where social prescribing is based. The INACT study will pilot a social prescribing pathway via schools to support young people who are lonely, testing its feasibility and acceptability of delivering, and evaluating its impact on loneliness through a randomised controlled trial.

methodsThis pilot study utilises a two-group (intervention vs. active control) parallel randomised design, with YP as the unit of randomisation. Approximately 78 pupils reporting loneliness will be recruited across 12 mainstream (6 primary and 6 secondary) schools in England. The co-produced social prescribing intervention includes 6-12 sessions over an 8-week period with a Link Worker who will work with individuals, on a one-to-one basis, to understand 'what matters to them' and connect them with local sources of support. Pupils in the control group will receive signposting to sources of support from school staff. Data will be collected at baseline, 3- and 6-month follow-up. Acceptability and feasibility will be assessed via participant recruitment and retention, and via qualitative interviews. Interviews will also explore barriers and facilitators to engagement and implementation and mechanisms of change. Primary and secondary outcomes will be completed to assess response and completeness, including measures of loneliness, mental health and wellbeing. DISCUSSION: The INACT study will provide preliminary evidence of the feasibility and acceptability of both the research design and social prescribing intervention. Results will inform a planned future randomised trial.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT06656663.

Indexed as

LonelinessSocial SupportAdolescentFemaleHumansMalePilot ProjectsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID40138284
PMCPMC11940566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.