An interventional study of Social Prescribing and Signposting in Loneliness, sponsored by University College, London. Active, not recruiting at 1 site in United Kingdom. Open to participants aged 9 Years to 13 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-12-06.
Sponsored by University College, London · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
Background: Social prescribing is a mechanism of connecting patients with non-medical forms of support within the community and has been shown to improve loneliness. Yet uptake from young people has been lower than for adults. This is thought to be due to accessibility issues as young people are less likely to draw on primary care, where social prescribing in based, for wellbeing support. INACT will pilot a social prescribing pathway via schools to support young people who are lonely. It will test the feasibility and acceptability of delivering and evaluating it through a randomised controlled trial.
Methods: 78 pupils reporting loneliness will be recruited across 12 mainstream (6 primary and 6 secondary) schools in England and be randomly allocated to signposting or social prescribing. Pupils in the control group will receive signposting to sources of support from school staff. The co-produced social prescribing intervention includes up to 6 sessions with a Link Worker who will work with individuals to understand 'what matters to them' and connect them with local sources of support. Data will be collected at baseline, 3- and 6-months later. Acceptability and feasibility will be assessed via recruitment and retention, as well as via qualitative interviews. Interviews will also explore barriers, facilitators and mechanisms of change. Potential primary and secondary outcomes for a future trial will be completed to assess response and completeness, including measures of loneliness, mental health and wellbeing.
Discussion: INACT will provide preliminary evidence of the feasibility and acceptability of both the research design and social prescribing intervention. Results will inform a potential future randomised trial.
University College, London is the lead sponsor of 632 studies on the registry; 145 are open to participants now.
Of its 6 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 2 (33%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
SP is a person-centred approach to wellbeing involving the co-development of a non-clinical prescription, between an individual (i.e. young person) and Link Workers (LWs), based on the perceived difficulties for the referral and the YPs values, needs and preferences. LWs have a good knowledge of their local areas, via community asset mapping and networking, allowing them to connect individuals with different types of available support and activities. Typically, SP ranges from 6-12 sessions (average 8 sessions: unpublished data from sites) with a LW over an 8-week period. Sessions may take place online, via phone call, or in person. As part of this process, LWs draw on psychological skills such as motivational interviewing and behavioural activation as well as employ problem solving and goal setting. Following the identification of issues and preferences, the LW will discuss with the YP what the available local activities and support structures are that best match their preferences.
Behavioral: Social Prescribing
Those in the control group will receive signposting to activities and local sources of support in their communities. This will consist of school pastoral staff meeting with YP identified as lonely and providing them with a leaflet detailing the same local sources of support identified by the LW from asset mapping.
Behavioral: Signposting
SP is a person-centred approach to wellbeing involving the co-development of a non-clinical prescription, between an individual (i.e. young person) and LW, based on the perceived difficulties for the referral and the YPs values, needs and preferences. LWs have an excellent knowledge of their local areas, via community asset mapping and networking, allowing them to connect individuals with different types of available support and activities. Typically, SP ranges from 6-12 sessions (average 8 sessions: unpublished data from sites) with a LW over an 8-week period. Sessions may take place online, via phone call, or in person. As part of this process, LWs draw on psychological skills such as motivational interviewing and behavioural activation as well as employ problem solving and goal setting. Following the identification of issues and preferences, the LW will discuss with the YP what the available local activities and support structures are that best match their preferences.
Those in the control group will receive signposting to activities and local sources of support in their communities. This will consist of school pastoral staff meeting with YP identified as lonely and providing them with a leaflet detailing the same local sources of support identified by the LW from asset mapping.
Loneliness
Good Childhood Index is assessed using 3 questions on a 3-point Likert scale (scoring between 3-9). Higher scores indicate higher reported loneliness.
Time frame: 3 Months
Intervention Feasibility (School Staff and Link Workers)
Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) is assessed using 4 questions each on a five-point Likert scale (scoring between 4-20). Higher scores indicate higher intervention feasibility
Time frame: 6 months
Intervention Acceptability (School Staff and Link Workers)
Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) is assessed using 4 questions each on a five-point Likert scale (scoring between 4-20). Higher scores indicate higher intervention acceptability
Time frame: 6 months
Intervention Appropriateness (School Staff and Link Workers)
Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) is assessed using 4 questions each on a five-point Likert scale (scoring between 4-20). Higher scores indicate higher intervention appropriateness
Time frame: 6 months
Peer loneliness
LACA - Peer Subscale is assessed using 12 questions each on a four-point Likert scale (scoring between 12-48). Higher scores indicate higher peer loneliness
Time frame: 3 and 6 months
Wellbeing
Kidscreen-52 is assessed using 6 questions each on a five-point Likert scale (scoring between 6-30). Higher scores indicate greater well-being.
Time frame: 3 and 6 months
Mental health (emotional difficulties)
Me and My feelings is assessed using 10 questions on a 3-point Likert scale (scoring between 0-20). Higher scores indicate higher emotional difficulties
Time frame: 3 and 6 months
Service Use
Client Service Receipt of Inventory is assessed using 11 questions on a five-point Likert scale. Scoring can be looked at by individual items (i.e. score between 1-5) or by scoring all items (i.e. scores between 11-55). Higher scores indicate more contact with a service/services.
Time frame: 3 and 6 months
Stress
Perceived Stress Scale 4 is assessed using 4 questions on a five-point Likert scale (scoring between 0-16). Higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived stress
Time frame: 3 and 6 months
Loneliness
Good Childhood Index is assessed using 3 questions on a three-point Likert scale (scoring between 3-9). Higher scores indicate higher reported loneliness.
Time frame: 6 Months
Family Support
Moderator using questions from the Student Resilience Survey which is assessed using 4 questions each on a five-point likert scale (scoring between 4-20). Higher scores indicate higher family support.
Time frame: Baseline only
School Support
Moderator using questions from the Student Resilience Survey which is assessed using 4 questions each on a five-point Likert scale (scoring between 4-20). Higher scores indicate higher school support.
Time frame: Baseline only
Social support
Moderator using CYRM-R which is assessed using 4 questions each on a five-point Likert scale (scoring between 4-20). Higher scores indicate higher social support
Time frame: 3 and 6 months
Local Environment
Moderator using questions from the HBSC 2022 assessed using 4 questions each on a five-point Likert scale (scoring between 4-20). Higher scores indicate a more positive view of ones local environment
Time frame: 3 and 6 months
Activity Engagement
Moderator using questions from the BeeWell survey which is assessed using 11 questions each on a six-point Likert scale (scoring between 11-66). Higher scores indicate higher daily engagement with more activities. Each item can also be scored individually and indicates more frequent engagement with that activity.
Time frame: 3 and 6 months
Bullying
Moderator using kidscreen-52 (primary school pupils) which is assessed using 3 questions each on a five-point Likert scale (scoring between 3-15). Higher scores indicate higher levels of bullying
Time frame: 3 and 6 months
Bullying
Moderator using the BeeWell survey (secondary school pupils) which is assessed using 3 questions each on a four-point Likert scale (scoring between 0-9). Higher scores indicate higher levels of bullying.
Time frame: 3 and 6 months
Social structure and quality
Moderator using questions adapted from PISA 2022 and MCS4 which is assessed using five questions. One of which requires an open-ended numerical value and four questions which are rated on a five-point Likert scale (scoring between 0-16). Higher scores indicate a greater social structure and friendship quality.
Time frame: 3 and 6 months
Problem Solving
Mechanism using the Student Resilience Survey which is assessed using 3 questions each on a five-point Likert scale (scoring between 3-15). Higher scores indicate higher problem solving with others
Time frame: 3 and 6 months
Flow
Mechanism using the General Flow Proneness Scale (secondary school pupils only) which is assessed using 13 questions each on a five-point Likert scale (scoring between 13-65). Higher scores indicate higher flow experience
Time frame: 3 and 6 months
Therapeutic Alliance
Mechanism using the Session Feedback Questionnaire which is assessed using 4 questions each on a five-point Likert scale (scoring between 4-20). Higher scores indicate higher therapeutic alliance. This is for individuals in the social prescribing intervention only
Time frame: 3 and 6 months
Plan to share: Undecided — Some IPD data will be shared but we specific data is being currently discussed with the funder. We will update this record when we know more.
This study is active, not recruiting, as verified in Dec 2024. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
University College, London