MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406624127 · doi:10.1155/hsc/5265529

Social Prescribing for Children and Youth: A Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4406624127 on OpenAlexafffund
Caitlin Muhl, Eleanor Cornish, Xin Ang Zhou, Kate Mulligan, Imaan Bayoumi, Rachelle Ashcroft, Amanda Ross‐White, Christina Godfrey

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth & Social Care in the Community · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Therapy and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPublic Health OntarioQueen's University
FundersUniversity of TorontoUniversity College London
KeywordsPsychologyMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social prescribing is gaining traction globally, with over 30 countries involved in the social prescribing movement. This holistic approach to health and well‐being is relevant to all ages, but it is especially important for children and youth. While this population has largely been neglected in social prescribing efforts, several evaluations of social prescribing programs specifically targeting this population have emerged in recent years, which calls for a review of the evidence on this topic. Thus, the objective of this scoping review was to map the evidence on the use of social prescribing for children and youth. This review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR). The search strategy aimed to locate both published and unpublished literature via 12 databases, Google, Google Scholar, Social Care Online, SIREN Evidence and Resource Library, websites of social prescribing organizations and networks, and a request for evidence sources to members of the International Social Prescribing Collaborative. No language or date restrictions were placed on the search. Two independent reviewers performed title and abstract screening, retrieval and assessment of full‐text evidence sources, and data extraction. Data analysis consisted of basic descriptive analysis. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria, including three mixed methods studies, two rapid evidence reviews, two qualitative studies, one uncontrolled before‐and‐after study, and one randomized clinical trial. All studies were published between 2020 and 2024. Evidently, social prescribing for children and youth is still in its infancy, with an evidence base that is limited in both quantity and quality. However, the existing evidence is promising, offering a starting point to build a robust evidence base, which calls for research and practice advancements in social prescribing for children and youth.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0230.024
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.284
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth & Social Care in the CommunitySame topicArt Therapy and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207