Back

School-based social prescribing to address youth loneliness: a pilot randomised controlled trial

Hayes, D.; Wright, J.; Bu, F.; Humphrey, N.; Qualter, P.; Han, E.; Sticpewich, L.; Maguire, S.; Umpierrez, L.; Burton, A.; Bone, J. K.; Stapley, E.; Tibber, M. S.; Booth, R. J.; Fancourt, D.

2026-04-28 public and global health
10.64898/2026.04.27.26351665 medRxiv
Show abstract

AimsYouth loneliness is associated with poorer mental health, educational disengagement, and adverse long-term health outcomes. While social prescribing shows promise in reducing loneliness in adults, access for young people remains limited as most pathways sit within primary care. Schools offer a near-universal point of contact and may provide a more accessible referral route. The INACT study aimed to pilot a school-based social prescribing pathway and assess its feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary signals of benefit for loneliness and related outcomes. MethodsPupils in Years 4, 5, 7 and 8 (ages 9 to 13; n=672) across 11 schools in London, Manchester, and Leeds were screened for loneliness. Those reporting elevated loneliness (n=140, 20.8%) were randomised to social prescribing or signposting. For follow-up, the social prescribing arm was capped at 41 pupils, and a matched subset of the signposting group (n=45) was followed longitudinally. Outcomes were collected at baseline, three-, and six-months. Feasibility indicators included recruitment, uptake, engagement, and retention. Acceptability and appropriateness were assessed using validated implementation measures and qualitative interviews with pupils and link workers. ResultsOne in five pupils reported elevated loneliness. In the social prescribing group, 83% initiated the pathway, attending a mean of 5.09 sessions, with most delivered in person. Implementation measures indicated high feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness. Interviews highlighted the importance of relational support and personalised activity matching, although some younger pupils needed support completing questionnaires. Preliminary analyses showed reductions in loneliness at three-months in both groups, with somewhat greater reductions in the social prescribing arm. ConclusionSchool-based social prescribing appears feasible and acceptable, with early indications of benefit. Schools may offer scalable infrastructure for addressing youth loneliness beyond healthcare pathways. A fully powered multi-site trial with economic evaluation is now warranted to determine effectiveness and long-term value. Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06656663

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 1%
14.7%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 15%
12.4%
3
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.4%
4
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.9%
5
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.0%
6
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
7
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.6%
8
BMJ Paediatrics Open
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
9
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
10
Palliative Medicine
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
11
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
12
Archives of Disease in Childhood
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
13
Psychological Medicine
74 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.7%
14
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
15
The British Journal of Psychiatry
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
16
European Journal of Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
17
Public Health
34 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
18
JAMA Pediatrics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
19
Social Science & Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
20
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
21
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
22
International Journal of Public Health
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
23
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.2%
24
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
25
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
26
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
27
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
28
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
29
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 63%
0.7%
30
The Lancet Regional Health - Europe
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%