Evaluates the impact of social prescribing on youth outcomes in an underserved community, suggesting enhanced support for children facing barriers.
Purpose Amid increasing interest and investment in interventions that produce positive childhood experiences (PCEs), our goal was to develop, implement, and evaluate a social prescribing program for children and youth in an underserved community. This paper outlines our program development, implementation, and evaluation efforts. Design/methodology/approach Our program was based in a social paediatric hub in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Following an eight-month period of program development, we launched the program in May 2023 and conducted a ten-month pilot, with an embedded program evaluation and knowledge mobilization strategy. The evaluation drew on sociodemographic and electronic medical record data, semi-structured interviews with participants, caregivers, hub staff, and community partners, and an open-ended survey for medical trainees. Central to this work was a shared commitment to community engagement, health equity, and quality improvement. Findings During our ten-month pilot, we served 43 children and youth between 4–17 years of age (mean = 10 years of age). There was a high proportion of males (n = 27; 63%), people whose first language was not English or French (n = 16; 37%), Francophones (n = 14; 33%), people born outside of North America (n = 18; 42%), newcomers (n = 15; 35%), ethnic and racial minorities (n = 33; 77%), and people with disabilities (n = 32; 74%). Participants came from families facing multiple socioeconomic barriers. Altogether, participants completed 230 sessions with their connector and co-produced 148 social prescriptions, spanning six different categories: (1) Arts and culture (n = 62); (2) Physical activity (n = 37); (3) Time in nature (n = 16); (4) Career exploration (n = 13); (5) Practical skills (n = 11); and (6) Entertainment and leisure (n = 9). Originality/value This work makes a novel contribution to the social prescribing literature. It offers a detailed account of our program development, implementation, and evaluation efforts and extends the limited evidence base on paediatric social prescribing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Muhl et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: