Back

A qualitative investigation of young peoples experiences and views of Early Support Hubs

Wright, L.; Griffiths, J.; Appleton, R.; Begum, S.; Clarke, C.; Hunt, N. C.; Lewis, H. K.; Barnett, P.; Bhutta, A.; Driskell, E.; Edbrooke-Childs, J.; Grundy, A.; Hanson, I.; Maynard, E. L.; Mitchell, L.; Saunders, R.; Waite, P.; Lloyd-Evans, B.; Trevillion, K.; Johnson, S.

2025-09-07 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.1101/2025.09.05.25335175 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundYouth is a period of elevated risk for mental ill health, yet young people often do not receive timely support. Barriers can include high clinical thresholds for treatment and long waiting lists, as overstretched statutory services can struggle to meet high demand. The Early Support Hubs available in some parts of England are a potentially promising model to increase access to support. These are community-based services offering open-access, holistic support for 11-25-year-olds without a referral. However, there is no standardised model and considerable variation in the support offered, highlighting the need for research to explore how Early Support Hubs operate, whether they are meeting the mental health and wellbeing needs of young people, and potential areas for improvement. AimsTo explore young peoples experiences of using Early Support Hubs for mental health or wellbeing support, and their views on best practice within these services. MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 young people aged 16-25 years, who had used Early Support Hub services across England. Data were analysed using codebook thematic analysis. ResultsAspects of hubs that were valued by young people included: easy accessibility; holistic approaches which go beyond clinical interventions; a sense of community, friendship and consistency; and youth-led philosophies. Limitations of the hub model included them being little known in local areas, lack of capacity to address more acute and complex mental health needs, and the limited scale of the services. ConclusionEarly Support Hubs appear to be valued by young people and have potential to be an adjunct to clinical services to help increase access to mental health support for young people. Evidence on populations served, what support they receive, and outcomes following support are needed to assess whether there is a policy case for wider roll out.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.0%
2
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 2%
10.6%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 18%
10.3%
4
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.6%
5
The British Journal of Psychiatry
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
50% of probability mass above
6
BMC Psychiatry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.5%
7
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.7%
8
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
9
European Psychiatry
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
10
Psychiatry Research
35 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.1%
11
BMJ Mental Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
12
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
13
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
14
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
15
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
16
Social Science & Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.4%
17
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
18
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
19
Journal of Affective Disorders
81 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
20
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
21
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.7%
22
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
23
Palliative Medicine
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
24
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
25
Public Health in Practice
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%