Farina, I. Masella, C. Sangiorgi, D. (2021) Positioning Social Prescribing in the scenario of community-based interventions for the transformation of mental health services for children, adolescents and young people: a review. Book of Abstract “Health Management: managing the present and shaping the future” European Health Management Association (EHMA) Annual Conference, 2021, pg. 29
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context \nSocial Prescribing is defined as a non-clinical and community-based service that addresses social needs \nthrough social solutions. Originated in UK for isolated and chronic-ill elderlies, the NHS has recently expanded \nSocial Prescribing as an all-age model, including children, adolescents and young people (CYP). From the first \nresults it is clear that Social Prescribing for CYP, as for adults, is a mental health and well-being service (Bertotti, \n2021). The aim of this paper is to understand how social prescribing for adolescents and young people can be \npositioned in the current scenario of transforming mental health services as a community-based intervention \nfor CYP. \nMethods \nA narrative review through systematic search has been developed. The systematic search has been conducted \nin electronic database (SCOPUS and PubMed) and integrated with grey literature capturing the material from \n2000 to 2021, through keywords as “adolescent*” or “young people” and “mental health” or “wellbeing” and \n“community-based interventions” or “community-based services” or “integrated care”. Title/abstract and full \ntext review was conducted. After screening 275 text at the title/abstract level and 119 at full-text level, including \n8 papers that were found through citations and were not part of the initial results, a total of 36 papers have \nbeen included. Papers have been analysed through a framework based on broader literature that addresses \nthe main challenges called out for youth mental health services innovation and community-based \ninterventions: access, youth-friendliness, stigma-free, youth participation, care ecosystem, sustainability. \nResults \nSeveral models and policies have been found that address the challenges and need to reform statuary services \nof CYP mental-healthcare systems. Countries as Australia, Ireland, UK and Canada have developed different \nmodels of community-based interventions, that share common principles and are mainly positioned as \nintegrated care services in the primary care tier with the aim to promote early detection of at-risk adolescents. \nSocial Prescribing shares common principles and focus on the same challenges addressed by the other \nmodels: how to make services accessible, how to design a youth-friendly and stigma-free service, how to \npromote youth participation, how to integrate the care ecosystem around CYP and make services sustainable. \nThe main difference is based on the nature of the models, where Social Prescribing focuses mainly on social \ndeterminants of health with a non-clinical approach. Another important element is the role played by the Link \nWorker as activator of the empowerment process of CYP through the recognition and activation of community \nresources. No similar role has been identified in other models. \nDiscussion \nSocial Prescribing, with its de-medicalisation and non-diagnosis centred principle, addresses an implicit gap \nin the current models and innovations of CYP mental-healthcare systems which is the potential of developing \nmental wellbeing through a non-clinical path and a relationship with the community, that for some people can \nwork as an only solution. It has the potential to shift from the effort on how to make mental health services \nmore accessible for CYP to transform how mental wellbeing is addressed and shared in the community. The \nrole of the community in community-based interventions is still unclear as well in Social Prescribing. Especially \nwhen focusing on social determinants of health in CYP mental health, further research should look at the \nimpact of services and models moving from on the individual as much as on the community and structural \nlevel.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".