Social prescribing for children and youth: A scoping review protocol

Caitlin Muhl; Kate Mulligan; Imaan Bayoumi; Rachelle Ashcroft; Amanda Ross-White; Christina Godfrey

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0297535

. 2024 Mar 8;19(3):e0297535. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297535

Social prescribing for children and youth: A scoping review protocol

Caitlin Muhl ¹, Kate Mulligan ^2,^*, Imaan Bayoumi ³, Rachelle Ashcroft ⁴, Amanda Ross-White ^5,⁶, Christina Godfrey ^1,⁶

Editor: Olujide Arije⁷

PMCID: PMC10923428 PMID: 38457470

Abstract

Social prescribing is suited to all age groups, but it is especially important for children and youth, as it is well understood that this population is particularly vulnerable to the effects of the social determinants of health and health inequities, and that intervening at this stage of life has the greatest impact on health and wellbeing over the life course. While this population has largely been neglected in social prescribing research, policy, and practice, several evaluations of social prescribing for children and youth have emerged in recent years, which calls for a review of the evidence on this topic. Thus, the objective of this scoping review is to map the evidence on the use of social prescribing for children and youth. This review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and will be reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished literature. No language or date restrictions will be placed on the search. The databases to be searched include MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), AMED (Ovid), ASSIA (ProQuest), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), Global Health (Ovid), Web of Science (Clarivate), Epistemonikos, JBI EBP Database (Ovid), and Cochrane Library. Sources of gray literature to be searched include Google, Google Scholar, Social Care Online (Social Care Institute for Excellence), SIREN Evidence and Resource Library (Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network), and websites of social prescribing organizations and networks. Additionally, a request for evidence sources will be sent out to members of the Global Social Prescribing Alliance. Two independent reviewers will perform title and abstract screening, retrieval and assessment of full-text evidence sources, and data extraction. Data analysis will consist of basic descriptive analysis. Results will be presented in tabular and/or diagrammatic format alongside a narrative summary.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated longstanding health inequities in society and unmasked the impact of the social determinants of health (SDOH) [1]. In doing so, this global crisis has shed light on the importance of social prescribing as a way to mitigate the effects of adverse SDOH and health inequities to support the achievement of global goals for health and wellbeing [2–4]. Social prescribing is “a means for trusted individuals in clinical and community settings to identify that a person has non-medical, health-related social needs and to subsequently connect them to non-clinical supports and services within the community by co-producing a social prescription–a non-medical prescription, to improve health and wellbeing and to strengthen community connections” [4 p. 9]. There is a growing body of evidence on social prescribing [5], which suggests that it supports the Quadruple Aim of improved client experience, improved population health, reduced costs, and improved provider experience [2, 6, 7], and that it also advances health equity [3], which is the fifth aim in the newly established Quintuple Aim [8]. There are over 20 countries involved in the social prescribing movement [9], and this number continues to grow.

Social prescribing is especially important for children and youth [10–12], as it is well understood that this population is particularly vulnerable to the effects of the SDOH and health inequities [13], and that intervening at this stage of life has the greatest impact on health and wellbeing over the life course [14]. Despite the clear rationale to target children and youth in social prescribing efforts, this population has largely been neglected in social prescribing research, policy, and practice, with adults receiving most of the attention [10–12]. As a result, evidence reviews on social prescribing have been heavily focused on adults [15–24]. However, several evaluations of social prescribing for children and youth have emerged in recent years, such as the Young People Social Prescribing pilot [25], CHOICES (CHildren and young people’s Options In the Community for Enhancing wellbeing through Social prescribing) [26], and INSPYRE (Increasing Social Prescribing Youth Referrals) [27]. Given the growing number of evaluations of social prescribing for children and youth, a review of the evidence on this topic would be most valuable. A preliminary search of PROSPERO, MEDLINE (Ovid), JBI EBP Database (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Google, and Google Scholar was conducted on October 28, 2023. A handful of current and underway evidence reviews on social prescribing for children and youth was found [28–33], albeit with a specific focus on mental health [28–32] and restrictions on language [28, 29, 31, 32], date [33], type of participants [30, 31, 33], type of social prescribing [28, 29, 32, 33], and type of context [33]. Notably, no evidence reviews with an aim to comprehensively map the evidence on social prescribing for children and youth were found. To address this gap in the literature, there is a need for a review of the evidence that is not solely focused on mental health or restricted by language, date, participants, concept, or context. Additionally, with the recent development of internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing [4], there is an opportunity to use the operational definition to develop inclusion and exclusion criteria that aligns with current understanding of this concept and to build a search strategy that is able to locate relevant evidence sources that are not labelled as social prescribing.

There are many different types of evidence reviews [34]. Scoping reviews are conducted to determine the scope of a body of literature on a particular topic [34–37]. This type of review is particularly useful for reviewing evidence in emerging fields or topics and for addressing broad review questions [35–37], making it the most appropriate method to map the evidence on social prescribing for children and youth. Thus, a scoping review of the evidence will be conducted.

The objective of this scoping review is to map the evidence on the use of social prescribing for children and youth. Recommendations for future research will be made based on identified knowledge gaps.

Review questions

What evidence exists on the use of social prescribing for children and youth?
What are the knowledge gaps in the evidence base around the use of social prescribing for children and youth?

Eligibility criteria

Participants

This review will consider evidence sources with participants who are children and youth (≤25 years of age). Evidence sources with participants who are not children and youth (>25 years of age) will be excluded. This age cutoff aligns with other reviews on this topic [29–33]. Participants must be children and youth rather than, for example, families, parents, guardians, or caregivers.

Concept

This review will consider evidence sources that explore a concept that meets the following operational definition of social prescribing, even if it is not labelled as social prescribing:

Social prescribing is “a holistic, person-centred, and community-based approach to health and wellbeing that satisfies Condition 1 and either Condition 2 or Conditions 3 and 4:

Condition 1: Identifier identifies that person has non-medical, health-related social needs (e.g., issues with housing, food, employment, income, social support)
Condition 2: Identifier connects person to non-clinical supports and services within the community by co-producing a non-medical prescription
Condition 3: Identifier refers person to connector
Condition 4: Connector connects person to non-clinical supports and services within the community by co-producing a non-medical prescription” [4 p. 9].

Evidence sources that explore a concept that does not meet this definition will be excluded.

Context

This review will consider evidence sources from any context.

Types of evidence sources

This review will consider both published and unpublished literature. Evidence sources with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods study designs will be considered. In addition to primary research, this review will consider reviews and meta-analyses, theses and dissertations, and reports. Evidence sources without full text, text and opinion papers, and protocols will be excluded.

Methods

This protocol has been registered on Open Science Framework (osf.io/xhymv) and published in this journal to promote transparency. The creation of this protocol was informed by best practice guidance for scoping review protocols from the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group [38]. This review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews [36] and will be reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [39]. This review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. All data relevant to the study will be included in the article or uploaded as S1 File.

Search strategy

The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished literature. An initial limited search of MEDLINE (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) was undertaken to identify evidence sources on the topic. The text words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant evidence sources, and the index terms used to describe the evidence sources, were used to develop a full search strategy for MEDLINE (Ovid) in Table 1. The search strategy was developed in consultation with an academic health sciences librarian. The research team will adapt the search strategy, including all identified keywords and index terms, for each included database and source of grey literature. This will be done in consultation with the academic health sciences librarian. The reference lists of all included evidence sources will be screened for additional evidence sources. No language or date restrictions will be placed on the search. In the event that translation becomes necessary, the review team will use DeepL Translator (DeepL SE, Cologne, Germany).

Table 1. Search strategy for MEDLINE (Ovid).

Number	Query	Results
1	((social or non-medical or non-clinical or community) adj (prescri* or referral*)).ti.	448
2	((social determinant* or social risk* or social need) and (identif or screen* or connect* or referral* or address* or navigat*)).ti.	858
3	1 or 2	1302
4	exp Child/	2167655
5	exp Child Health/	5183
6	exp Child Health Services/	25755
7	exp Adolescent/	2224547
8	exp Adolescent Health/	1932
9	exp Adolescent Health Services/	5897
10	exp Young Adult/	1016158
11	exp Pediatrics/	63157
12	(child* or adolescen* or youth or young people* or young person* or young adult* or teen* or pediatric* or paediatric*).mp.	4571010
13	4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12	4575056
14	3 and 13	299

Open in a new tab

Search conducted on October 31, 2023

The databases to be searched include MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), AMED (Ovid), ASSIA (ProQuest), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), Global Health (Ovid), Web of Science (Clarivate), Epistemonikos, JBI EBP Database (Ovid), and Cochrane Library. Sources of gray literature to be searched include Google, Google Scholar, Social Care Online (Social Care Institute for Excellence), SIREN Evidence and Resource Library (Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network), and websites of social prescribing organizations and networks, including the Social Prescribing Network, the Social Prescribing Youth Network, the Global Social Prescribing Alliance, the National Academy for Social Prescribing, and the Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing. Additionally, a request for evidence sources will be sent out to members of the Global Social Prescribing Alliance.

Evidence source selection

Following the search, all identified evidence sources will be collated and imported into Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia) and duplicates removed. Following a pilot test, titles and abstracts will then be screened by two independent reviewers for assessment against the inclusion criteria for the review. Potentially relevant evidence sources will be retrieved in full, imported into Covidence, and assessed in detail against the inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. Reasons for exclusion of evidence sources at full text that do not meet the inclusion criteria will be recorded and reported in the scoping review. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers at each stage of the selection process will be resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. The results of the search and the evidence source inclusion process will be reported in full in the final scoping review and presented in a PRISMA-ScR flow diagram [39].

Data extraction

Data will be extracted from evidence sources included in the scoping review by two independent reviewers using a data extraction tool developed by the research team. The data extracted will include specific details about the objective, participants, concept, context, methods, and key findings relevant to the review questions. A draft data extraction tool is provided in Table 2. This tool will be modified and revised as necessary during the process of extracting data from each included evidence source. Modifications will be detailed in the scoping review. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. Authors of evidence sources will be contacted to request missing or additional data, where required.

Table 2. Draft data extraction tool.

Citation Details	Objective	Participants	Concept	Context	Methods	Key Findings

Open in a new tab

Data analysis and presentation

Data analysis will consist of basic descriptive analysis. Results will be presented in tabular and/or diagrammatic format in a manner that aligns with the review objective. A narrative summary will accompany the tabulated and/or charted results and will describe how the results relate to the review objective and questions.

Supporting information

S1 File. Scoping review protocol checklist.

(PDF)

pone.0297535.s001.pdf^{(1.1MB, pdf)}

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

1.World Health Organization. COVID-19 and the social determinants of health and health equity: evidence brief [Internet]. World Health Organization; 2021. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240038387 [Google Scholar]
2.Morse DF, Sandhu S, Mulligan K, Tierney S, Polley M, Chiva Giurca B, et al. Global developments in social prescribing. BMJ Glob Health. 2022;7(5):e008524. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.World Health Organization. A toolkit on how to implement social prescribing [Internet]. World Health Organization; 2022. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789290619765 [Google Scholar]
4.Muhl C, Mulligan K, Bayoumi I, Ashcroft R, Godfrey C. Establishing internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing through expert consensus: a Delphi study. BMJ Open. 2023;13(7):e070184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Global Social Prescribing Alliance. Global Social Prescribing Alliance: international playbook [Internet]. Global Social Prescribing Alliance; 2021. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.gspalliance.com/gspa-playbook [Google Scholar]
6.Bodenheimer T, Sinsky C. From Triple to Quadruple Aim: care of the patient requires care of the provider. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12(6):573–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Sikka R, Morath JM, Leape L. The Quadruple Aim: care, health, cost and meaning in work. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24(10):608–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Nundy S, Cooper LA, Mate KS. The Quintuple Aim for health care improvement: a new imperative to advance health equity. JAMA. 2022;327(6):521–2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Khan H, Giurca BC, Sanderson J, Dixon M, Leitch A, Cook C, et al. Social prescribing around the world—a world map of global developments in social prescribing across different health system contexts [Internet]. London (UK): National Academy for Social Prescribing; 2023. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://socialprescribingacademy.org.uk/media/1yeoktid/social-prescribing-around-the-world.pdf [Google Scholar]
10.Healthy London Partnership. Social prescribing for children, young people and families: a guide for commissioners [Internet]. Healthy London Partnership; 2016. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.healthylondon.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/HLP-CYP-Social-Prescribing-for-CYP-Dec-2016.pdf [Google Scholar]
11.Bertotti M, Hayes D, Berry V, Jarvis-Beesley P, Husk K. Social prescribing for children and young people. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2022;6(12):835–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Bertotti M, Polley M, Jarvis-Beesley P. Social prescribing for children and young people—resources for developing an accessible, all-age model [Internet]. StreetGames; 2020. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://network.streetgames.org/sites/default/files/All-Age%20Social%20Prescribing%20Executive%20Summary.pdf [Google Scholar]
13.Spencer N, Raman S, O’Hare B, Tamburlini G. Addressing inequities in child health and development: towards social justice. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2019;3(1):e000503. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.WHO Regional Office for Europe. Reducing inequities in health across the life-course: early years, childhood and adolescence [Internet]. WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2020. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/457289/Reducing-inequities-in-health-across-the-life-course.pdf [Google Scholar]
15.Sandhu S, Lian T, Drake C, Moffatt S, Wildman J, Wildman J. Intervention components of link worker social prescribing programmes: a scoping review. Health Soc Care Community. 2022;30(6):e3761–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Mason J, Gatineau M, Beynon C, Gledhill R, Clark R, Baker R. Effectiveness of social prescribing: an evidence synthesis [Internet]. Public Health England; 2019. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://phe.koha-ptfs.co.uk/cgi-bin/koha/opac-retrieve-file.pl?id=9c033e58d33d6eb6f59dae978c0f7839 [Google Scholar]
17.Thomas T, Aggar C, Baker J, Massey D, Thomas M, D’Appio D, et al. Social prescribing of nature therapy for adults with mental illness living in the community: a scoping review of peer-reviewed international evidence. Front Psychol. 2022;13:1041675. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Featherstone C, Sharpe RA, Axford N, Asthana S, Husk K. Health and wellbeing outcomes and social prescribing pathways in community-based support for autistic adults: a systematic mapping review of reviews. Health Soc Care Community. 2022;30(3):e621–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Cooper M, Avery L, Scott J, Ashley K, Jordan C, Errington L, et al. Effectiveness and active ingredients of social prescribing interventions targeting mental health: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2022;12(7):e060214. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060214 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Costa A, Sousa CJ, Seabra PRC, Virgolino A, Santos O, Lopes J, et al. Effectiveness of social prescribing programs in the primary health-care context: a systematic literature review. Sustainability. 2021;13(5):2731. [Google Scholar]
21.Kiely B, Croke A, O’Shea M, Boland F, O’Shea E, Connolly D, et al. Effect of social prescribing link workers on health outcomes and costs for adults in primary care and community settings: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2022;12(10):e062951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Napierala H, Krüger K, Kuschick D, Heintze C, Herrmann WJ, Holzinger F. Social prescribing: systematic review of the effectiveness of psychosocial community referral interventions in primary care. Int J Integr Care. 2022;22(3):11. doi: 10.5334/ijic.6472 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Percival A, Newton C, Mulligan K, Petrella RJ, Ashe MC. Systematic review of social prescribing and older adults: where to from here? Fam Med Community Health. 2022;10(Suppl 1):e001829. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Grover S, Sandhu P, Nijjar GS, Percival A, Chudyk AM, Liang J, et al. Older adults and social prescribing experience, outcomes, and processes: a meta-aggregation systematic review. Public Health. 2023;218:197–207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Bertotti M, Frostick C, Sharpe D, Temirov O. A two-year evaluation of the Young People Social Prescribing (YPSP) pilot: an outcome, process and economic evaluation of social prescribing for young people in three English sites [Internet]. 2020. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://repository.uel.ac.uk/download/5c63906437d90e4093a320b51355232d12648ab00d6df93137b1aefa74dfc892/851983/SP%20for%20young%20people%20evaluation%20final%20report%20for%20publication.pdf [Google Scholar]
26.PenARC. CHOICES: CHildren and young people’s Options In the Community for Enhancing wellbeing through Social prescribing [Internet]. PenARC; c2023. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://arc-swp.nihr.ac.uk/research/projects/cyp-choices/ [Google Scholar]
27.University College London. INSPYRE [Internet]. University College London; c2023. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/epidemiology-health-care/research/behavioural-science-and-health/research/social-biobehavioural-research-group/inspyre [Google Scholar]
28.Hayes D, Cortina M, Labno A, Moore A, Edbrooke-Childs J, Moltrecht B, et al. Social prescribing in children and young people: a review of the evidence [Internet]. 2020. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/evidence-based-practice-unit/sites/evidence-based-practice-unit/files/review_social_prescribing_in_children_and_young_people_final_0.pdf [Google Scholar]
29.Hayes D, Bertotti M, Berry V, Husk K. A review of social prescribing in child and youth mental health: synthesising theory, intervention functions and behaviour change techniques [Internet]. York (UK): PROSPERO; 2022. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=325573 [Google Scholar]
30.Mitchell S, Husk K, Bethel A, Gude A, Smith J, Bertotti M, et al. The use of social prescribing and community-based wellbeing activities as a potential prevention and early intervention pathway to improve adolescent emotional and social development [Internet]. York (UK): PROSPERO; 2022. [cited 2023 Oct 28]. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=312745 [Google Scholar]
31.Izuagie T, Grice-Jackson T, Glass D. The effectiveness of social prescribing for children and young people (CYP) with/at risk of experiencing mental health difficulties: a systematic review [Internet]. York (UK): PROSPERO; 2023. [cited 2023 Oct 28]. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023391376 [Google Scholar]
32.Hayes D, Jarvis-Beesley P, Mitchell D, Polley M, Husk K. The impact of social prescribing on children and young people’s mental health and wellbeing [Internet]. London (UK): National Academy for Social Prescribing; 2023. [cited 2023 Oct 28]. Available from: https://socialprescribingacademy.org.uk/media/lrif2emh/evidence-review-the-impact-of-social-prescribing-on-children-and-young-peoples-health-and-wellbeing.pdf [Google Scholar]
33.Gordon K, Gordon L, Basu A. Social prescribing for children and young people with neuro-disabilities/neuro-divergence and their families, in a hospital setting [Internet]. York (UK): PROSPERO; 2022. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=384188 [Google Scholar]
34.Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Info Libr J. 2019;36(3):202–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(143). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Peters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco A, Khalil H. JBI manual for evidence synthesis [Internet]. Adelaide (AU): JBI; 2020. Chapter 11, Scoping reviews. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: doi: 10.46658/JBIMES-20-12 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
37.Peters M, Marnie C, Tricco A, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Peters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Khalil H, Larsen P, Marnie C, et al. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20(4):953–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297535.r001

Decision Letter 0

Olujide Arije

27 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-11764

Social prescribing for children and youth: A scoping review protocol

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Muhl,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 09 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Olujide Arije

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

3. We note that this manuscript is a systematic review or meta-analysis; our author guidelines therefore require that you use PRISMA guidance to help improve reporting quality of this type of study. Please upload copies of the completed PRISMA checklist as Supporting Information with a file name “PRISMA checklist”.

Additional Editor Comments:

The reviewers generally concur on the valid rationale behind the protocol's topic. One of the reviewers indicate that additional justification of the publication of the protocol is required. However, no modifications are required to address this concern.

The editorial staff has brought to my attention that there is a related Study Protocol currently under consideration at PLOS ONE titled "Social Prescribing and Students: A Scoping Review Protocol," which delves into the examination of evidence regarding social prescribing and students. It is essential to emphasize that the journal strongly discourages the unnecessary fragmentation of related work into separate manuscripts. PLOS ONE's policy mandates that each submission be a self-contained unit, without reliance on work that has not yet been accepted for publication. If authors choose to submit related manuscripts to PLOS ONE, they are strongly encouraged to assess the potential for consolidation into a single comprehensive manuscript. Alternatively, authors should provide compelling reasons for separate publication. In view of this, a major revision decision has been given to your manuscript at this time.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Social prescribing has been implemented as a novel intervention to address non-clinical social needs with promising results.Children and adolescents do have non clinical social needs and it is important that literature on this intervention in this population is explored.

A scoping review is appropriate in this case. The objectives and methods have been well explained

Reviewer #2: The protocol does have a valid rationale, however, it is not clear why there is a need for the authors to have their protocol published before they start with their actual reviews. I do not see this as a topical issue that can be at risk if not published from the protocol.

The methodology is not clearly outlined and described, and this makes it difficult to fully understand the protocol.

Reviewer #3: This is a clear and well written protocol for this scoping review. The authors rightly point out that less attention has been given to this age group and therefore this review is warranted. Furthermore, it will be valuable to apply the operational constructs of their recently published definition to the included studies.

There was a brief description of how data will be presented, but I couldn't see where data underlying the findings will be made available once the study is complete.

I have no further comments and wish the authors good luck with their work.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Marie Polley

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 8;19(3):e0297535. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297535.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

30 Nov 2023

Dear Editor,

We note that this manuscript is a scoping review protocol. Therefore, we did not include a PRISMA checklist because that checklist is specifically for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols. Instead, we included a checklist that was developed by JBI for scoping review protocols. This checklist has been included as Supporting Information with a file name “S1_File”.

Kind regards,

Dr. Kate Mulligan

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0297535.s002.docx^{(24.3KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297535.r003

Decision Letter 1

Olujide Arije

9 Jan 2024

Social prescribing for children and youth: A scoping review protocol

PONE-D-23-11764R1

Dear Dr. Mulligan,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Dr. Olujide Arije, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: I find the author responses acceptable to the comments posed to them. As an expert in this field I would like to highlight the benefit of publishing the protocol as there are many other active research groups and there are few opportunities to know what each other are doing. Publishing this protocol will is useful to ensure no one else starts this work and duplicates time and funding.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr Marie Polley

**********

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297535.r004

Acceptance letter

Olujide Arije

27 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-11764R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mulligan,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Olujide Arije

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 File. Scoping review protocol checklist.

(PDF)

pone.0297535.s001.pdf^{(1.1MB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0297535.s002.docx^{(24.3KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

[pone.0297535.ref001] 1.World Health Organization. COVID-19 and the social determinants of health and health equity: evidence brief [Internet]. World Health Organization; 2021. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240038387 [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref002] 2.Morse DF, Sandhu S, Mulligan K, Tierney S, Polley M, Chiva Giurca B, et al. Global developments in social prescribing. BMJ Glob Health. 2022;7(5):e008524. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref003] 3.World Health Organization. A toolkit on how to implement social prescribing [Internet]. World Health Organization; 2022. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789290619765 [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref004] 4.Muhl C, Mulligan K, Bayoumi I, Ashcroft R, Godfrey C. Establishing internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing through expert consensus: a Delphi study. BMJ Open. 2023;13(7):e070184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref005] 5.Global Social Prescribing Alliance. Global Social Prescribing Alliance: international playbook [Internet]. Global Social Prescribing Alliance; 2021. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.gspalliance.com/gspa-playbook [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref006] 6.Bodenheimer T, Sinsky C. From Triple to Quadruple Aim: care of the patient requires care of the provider. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12(6):573–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref007] 7.Sikka R, Morath JM, Leape L. The Quadruple Aim: care, health, cost and meaning in work. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24(10):608–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref008] 8.Nundy S, Cooper LA, Mate KS. The Quintuple Aim for health care improvement: a new imperative to advance health equity. JAMA. 2022;327(6):521–2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref009] 9.Khan H, Giurca BC, Sanderson J, Dixon M, Leitch A, Cook C, et al. Social prescribing around the world—a world map of global developments in social prescribing across different health system contexts [Internet]. London (UK): National Academy for Social Prescribing; 2023. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://socialprescribingacademy.org.uk/media/1yeoktid/social-prescribing-around-the-world.pdf [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref010] 10.Healthy London Partnership. Social prescribing for children, young people and families: a guide for commissioners [Internet]. Healthy London Partnership; 2016. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.healthylondon.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/HLP-CYP-Social-Prescribing-for-CYP-Dec-2016.pdf [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref011] 11.Bertotti M, Hayes D, Berry V, Jarvis-Beesley P, Husk K. Social prescribing for children and young people. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2022;6(12):835–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref012] 12.Bertotti M, Polley M, Jarvis-Beesley P. Social prescribing for children and young people—resources for developing an accessible, all-age model [Internet]. StreetGames; 2020. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://network.streetgames.org/sites/default/files/All-Age%20Social%20Prescribing%20Executive%20Summary.pdf [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref013] 13.Spencer N, Raman S, O’Hare B, Tamburlini G. Addressing inequities in child health and development: towards social justice. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2019;3(1):e000503. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref014] 14.WHO Regional Office for Europe. Reducing inequities in health across the life-course: early years, childhood and adolescence [Internet]. WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2020. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/457289/Reducing-inequities-in-health-across-the-life-course.pdf [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref015] 15.Sandhu S, Lian T, Drake C, Moffatt S, Wildman J, Wildman J. Intervention components of link worker social prescribing programmes: a scoping review. Health Soc Care Community. 2022;30(6):e3761–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref016] 16.Mason J, Gatineau M, Beynon C, Gledhill R, Clark R, Baker R. Effectiveness of social prescribing: an evidence synthesis [Internet]. Public Health England; 2019. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://phe.koha-ptfs.co.uk/cgi-bin/koha/opac-retrieve-file.pl?id=9c033e58d33d6eb6f59dae978c0f7839 [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref017] 17.Thomas T, Aggar C, Baker J, Massey D, Thomas M, D’Appio D, et al. Social prescribing of nature therapy for adults with mental illness living in the community: a scoping review of peer-reviewed international evidence. Front Psychol. 2022;13:1041675. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref018] 18.Featherstone C, Sharpe RA, Axford N, Asthana S, Husk K. Health and wellbeing outcomes and social prescribing pathways in community-based support for autistic adults: a systematic mapping review of reviews. Health Soc Care Community. 2022;30(3):e621–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref019] 19.Cooper M, Avery L, Scott J, Ashley K, Jordan C, Errington L, et al. Effectiveness and active ingredients of social prescribing interventions targeting mental health: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2022;12(7):e060214. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060214 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref020] 20.Costa A, Sousa CJ, Seabra PRC, Virgolino A, Santos O, Lopes J, et al. Effectiveness of social prescribing programs in the primary health-care context: a systematic literature review. Sustainability. 2021;13(5):2731. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref021] 21.Kiely B, Croke A, O’Shea M, Boland F, O’Shea E, Connolly D, et al. Effect of social prescribing link workers on health outcomes and costs for adults in primary care and community settings: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2022;12(10):e062951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref022] 22.Napierala H, Krüger K, Kuschick D, Heintze C, Herrmann WJ, Holzinger F. Social prescribing: systematic review of the effectiveness of psychosocial community referral interventions in primary care. Int J Integr Care. 2022;22(3):11. doi: 10.5334/ijic.6472 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref023] 23.Percival A, Newton C, Mulligan K, Petrella RJ, Ashe MC. Systematic review of social prescribing and older adults: where to from here? Fam Med Community Health. 2022;10(Suppl 1):e001829. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref024] 24.Grover S, Sandhu P, Nijjar GS, Percival A, Chudyk AM, Liang J, et al. Older adults and social prescribing experience, outcomes, and processes: a meta-aggregation systematic review. Public Health. 2023;218:197–207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref025] 25.Bertotti M, Frostick C, Sharpe D, Temirov O. A two-year evaluation of the Young People Social Prescribing (YPSP) pilot: an outcome, process and economic evaluation of social prescribing for young people in three English sites [Internet]. 2020. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://repository.uel.ac.uk/download/5c63906437d90e4093a320b51355232d12648ab00d6df93137b1aefa74dfc892/851983/SP%20for%20young%20people%20evaluation%20final%20report%20for%20publication.pdf [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref026] 26.PenARC. CHOICES: CHildren and young people’s Options In the Community for Enhancing wellbeing through Social prescribing [Internet]. PenARC; c2023. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://arc-swp.nihr.ac.uk/research/projects/cyp-choices/ [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref027] 27.University College London. INSPYRE [Internet]. University College London; c2023. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/epidemiology-health-care/research/behavioural-science-and-health/research/social-biobehavioural-research-group/inspyre [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref028] 28.Hayes D, Cortina M, Labno A, Moore A, Edbrooke-Childs J, Moltrecht B, et al. Social prescribing in children and young people: a review of the evidence [Internet]. 2020. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/evidence-based-practice-unit/sites/evidence-based-practice-unit/files/review_social_prescribing_in_children_and_young_people_final_0.pdf [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref029] 29.Hayes D, Bertotti M, Berry V, Husk K. A review of social prescribing in child and youth mental health: synthesising theory, intervention functions and behaviour change techniques [Internet]. York (UK): PROSPERO; 2022. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=325573 [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref030] 30.Mitchell S, Husk K, Bethel A, Gude A, Smith J, Bertotti M, et al. The use of social prescribing and community-based wellbeing activities as a potential prevention and early intervention pathway to improve adolescent emotional and social development [Internet]. York (UK): PROSPERO; 2022. [cited 2023 Oct 28]. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=312745 [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref031] 31.Izuagie T, Grice-Jackson T, Glass D. The effectiveness of social prescribing for children and young people (CYP) with/at risk of experiencing mental health difficulties: a systematic review [Internet]. York (UK): PROSPERO; 2023. [cited 2023 Oct 28]. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023391376 [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref032] 32.Hayes D, Jarvis-Beesley P, Mitchell D, Polley M, Husk K. The impact of social prescribing on children and young people’s mental health and wellbeing [Internet]. London (UK): National Academy for Social Prescribing; 2023. [cited 2023 Oct 28]. Available from: https://socialprescribingacademy.org.uk/media/lrif2emh/evidence-review-the-impact-of-social-prescribing-on-children-and-young-peoples-health-and-wellbeing.pdf [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref033] 33.Gordon K, Gordon L, Basu A. Social prescribing for children and young people with neuro-disabilities/neuro-divergence and their families, in a hospital setting [Internet]. York (UK): PROSPERO; 2022. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=384188 [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref034] 34.Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Info Libr J. 2019;36(3):202–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref035] 35.Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(143). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref036] 36.Peters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco A, Khalil H. JBI manual for evidence synthesis [Internet]. Adelaide (AU): JBI; 2020. Chapter 11, Scoping reviews. [cited 2023 Apr 18]. Available from: doi: 10.46658/JBIMES-20-12 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref037] 37.Peters M, Marnie C, Tricco A, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref038] 38.Peters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Khalil H, Larsen P, Marnie C, et al. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20(4):953–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0297535.ref039] 39.Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Social prescribing for children and youth: A scoping review protocol

Caitlin Muhl

Kate Mulligan

Imaan Bayoumi

Rachelle Ashcroft

Amanda Ross-White

Christina Godfrey

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Review questions

Eligibility criteria

Participants

Concept

Context

Types of evidence sources

Methods

Search strategy

Table 1. Search strategy for MEDLINE (Ovid).

Evidence source selection

Data extraction

Table 2. Draft data extraction tool.

Data analysis and presentation

Supporting information

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Olujide Arije

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Olujide Arije

Roles

Acceptance letter

Olujide Arije

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases