Introduction: a growing need for prevention in adolescent mental health
Adolescent mental health is increasingly drawing attention in primary care, schools, and communities. The COVID-19 era intensified demand, while specialist services often struggle to meet needs promptly. Although social prescribing has gained traction for adults, its application to children and young people (CYP) remains limited and uneven. This mapping review investigates how social prescribing-like pathways operate for CYP and how they connect young people to community assets that support emotional and social development.
Why social connectedness matters in adolescence
Adolescence is a phase of rapid physical, emotional, and social change. Building social connections outside the family is central to identity formation and wellbeing. Evidence shows that a large share of mental health difficulties emerge before age 25, underscoring the potential value of early, community-based interventions. Yet statutory services often lag in prevention and early intervention, leaving problems to escalate or surface after multiple help-seeking contacts.
What social prescribing for CYP looks like in practice
Social prescribing generally links individuals to non-clinical community assets—activities, groups, and supports that align with interests and goals. In CYP settings, a wide variety of delivery models exist, and many studies describe pathways that do not always label themselves as “social prescribing.” The review maps 68 sources describing 72 services across 10 countries, with England contributing the majority of evidence.
Key delivery settings include schools, youth and community centres, and health services, but activities also occur in parks, cafes, and online spaces. Age ranges served by CYP services vary from roughly 4 to 29 years, with common entry points at ages around 11 to 16 and exits around mid-20s, reflecting transitions from school to adult life.
Referral sources and the role of linking functions
Referrals come from schools, general practitioners, self-referral, and, less commonly, specialist mental health services. A central question is whether a formal linking function—often called a Link Worker or Young Person’s Social Prescriber—exists. About one-third of the services described explicit linking roles. In others, access to activities is more direct, potentially limiting tailoring to individual needs and reducing shared decision-making.
The pathway length varies dramatically, from short six-week programs to engagements lasting years, with many studies omitting a clear timeline. This variability reflects both the novelty of CYP-focused social prescribing and the diversity of local implementation, settings, and community assets.
Types of activities and how they map to wellbeing outcomes
Activities cluster into four NASP pillars for adults (Advice/Information, Arts/Heritage, Natural Environment, Physical Activity), but CYP pathways often extend beyond these categories. Common activities include physical exercise (surfing, yoga, walking groups), nature-based experiences (ecotherapy, gardening), arts-based programs (creative art, theatre, dance), and informal social groups (volunteering, mentoring, peer support).
Outcomes reported across studies emphasize psychological wellbeing (mood, self-esteem, resilience), social wellbeing (loneliness, social connectedness), and, less consistently, behavior, school engagement, and service use. Overall, findings point to largely positive effects on mental wellbeing and reduced loneliness, though the evidence base remains diverse and non-uniform in design and rigor.
Gaps, challenges, and implications for practice
Several gaps emerge. First, conceptual clarity around eligibility and needs is inconsistent, hampering targeted prevention and early intervention. Second, the presence or absence of a dedicated linking function matters: without a broker to tailor, match, and navigate assets, CYP may receive generic rather than person-centered pathways. Third, the four-pillar framework may be insufficient to capture CYP-specific community offers, which often include mentoring, volunteering, and other social supports outside traditional pillar categories.
Policy and practice implications include developing CYP-specific models of social prescribing, clarifying referral and linking roles, and integrating schools, communities, and health services to enable timely, accessible support. Given post-pandemic demand, scalable approaches that emphasize youth-led decision making and co-design with communities could enhance engagement and outcomes for adolescents.
Conclusion: toward a CYP-tailored social prescribing ecosystem
While evidence of effectiveness is still evolving, the mapping suggests social prescribing and related community-based wellbeing activities hold promise as prevention and early intervention pathways for CYP. A future research agenda should prioritise clear eligibility criteria, robust evaluation designs, and CYP-informed conceptual models that reflect the realities of community assets and young people’s lived experiences. In doing so, policymakers and practitioners can better connect young people to meaningful activities that support emotional and social development during a critical life stage.
