ArticleBMJ mental health2026
Using electronic health records to evaluate a children and young people's social prescribing service: challenges and implications for research and practice.
Article in BMJ mental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Social prescribing for children and young people in the UK: characterising access and care pathways using electronic health records.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Digital social prescribing: a concept analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreliminary evidence indicates that social prescribing (SP) can improve children and young people's (CYP) well-being but is limited by small non-representative samples and often relies on descriptive statistics. Given the wide implementation of SP in the UK, administrative records provide a unique opportunity to understand current practice and assess impacts on well-being.
objectives(1) To understand the quality of data captured in SP administrative records. (2) To explore which CYP are currently receiving SP and what SP entails in practice. (3) To assess the impact of SP on well-being.
methodsWe used administrative records from one CYP SP service in England. Records were extracted from Joy, an online platform for managing SP. Over 18 months, 770 age-eligible CYP were referred to SP, 203 of whom were successfully discharged and completed two pre-post measures of well-being (the short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale; SWEMWBS) at least 7 days apart. We used descriptive statistics, a paired t-test to assess changes in well-being and linear regressions with interactions to test effect modification.
findingsMissing data was the largest issue, with ethnicity missing for 94% of CYP. A lack of detail and inconsistent recording for both individual characteristics and SP practices also presented challenges. Despite this, we identified that most CYP were referred by their GP, followed by their school, with 97% referred because of their mental health. The most common pathway was to receive SP for around 90 days, with 10-15 link worker contacts and 6 contact hours. Following SP, SWEMWBS scores improved by 3.72 points (t(202)=17.50, 95% CI 3.30 to 4.14, p<0.001), a 20% relative increase. Exploratory analyses suggested that this increase was greater for those with lower baseline well-being.
conclusionsDespite numerous challenges with missing data and data quality, we found that CYP well-being increases following SP (as it is currently implemented). The moderate effect size was consistent with larger studies of adults. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Further development of online platforms is needed to monitor access to, nature of and efficacy of SP. For those working in SP, we recommend more training, implementation of standardised guidelines and designated time to update records.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.