Objectives: The non-clinical approach known as social prescribing aims to tackle multi-morbidity, reduce general practitioner (GP) workload and promote wellbeing by directing patients to community services. Usual in-person modes of delivery of social prescribing have been virtually impossible under social distancing rules. This study qualitatively examined and compared the responses of three social prescribing schemes in Scotland to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We interviewed a theoretical sample of 23 stakeholders in urban and rural social prescribing schemes at the start of COVID-19 pandemic. Follow-up interviews with a representative sample were conducted around 10 months later. Interviewees included social prescribing coordinators (SPCs) GPs, managers, researchers and representatives of third sector organizations. Interview transcripts were analysed in stages and an inductive approach to coding was supported by NVivo. Results: Findings revealed a complex social prescribing landscape in Scotland with schemes funded, structured and delivering services in diverse ways. Across all schemes, working effectively during the pandemic and shifting to online delivery had been challenging and demanding; however, their priorities in response to the pandemic had differed. With GP time and services stretched to limits, GP practice-attached ‘Link Workers’ had taken on counselling and advocacy roles, sometimes for serious mental health cases. Community-based SPCs had mostly assumed a health education role, and those on the Western Isles of Scotland a digital support role. In both rural or urban areas, combatting loneliness and isolation – especially given social distancing – remained a pivotal aspect of the SPC role. Conclusion: This study highlights significant challenges and shifts in focus in social prescribing in response to the pandemic. The use of multiple digital technologies has assumed a central role in social prescribing, and this situation seems likely to remain. With statutory and non-statutory services stretched to their limits, there is a danger of SPCs assuming new tasks without adequate training or support.

Social prescribing schemes refer people toward personalized health/wellbeing interventions in local communities. Since schemes hold different representations of social prescribing, responses to the pandemic crisis will vary. Intersectionality states that social divisions build on one another, sustaining unequal health outcomes. We conducted and inductively analysed interviews with twenty-three professional and volunteer stakeholders across three social prescribing schemes in urban and rural Scotland at the start and end of year one of the pandemic. Concerns included identifying and digitally supporting disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals and reduced capacity statutory and third-sector services, obliging link workers to assume new practical and psychological responsibilities. Social prescribing services in Scotland, we argue, represent a collage of practices superimposed on a struggling healthcare system. Those in need of such services are unlikely to break through disadvantage whilst situated within a social texture wherein inequalities of education, health and environmental arrangements broadly intersect with one another.

Introduction: Children exposed to parental intimate partner violence and abuse, mental illness, and substance use experience a range of problems which may persist into adulthood. These risks often co-occur and interact with structural factors such as poverty. Despite increasing evidence, it remains unclear how best to improve outcomes for children and families experiencing these adversities and address the complex issues they face. Aims and Methods: Systematic review of systematic reviews. We searched international literature databases for systematic reviews, from inception to 2021, to provide an evidence overview of the range and effectiveness of interventions to support children and families where these parental risk factors had been identified. Results: Sixty-two systematic reviews were included. The majority ( n = 59) focused on interventions designed to address single risk factors. Reviews mostly focused on parental mental health ( n = 38) and included psychological interventions or parenting-training for mothers. Only two reviews assessed interventions to address all three risk factors in combination and assessed structural interventions. Evidence indicates that families affected by parental mental health problems may be best served by integrated interventions combining therapeutic interventions for parents with parent skills training. Upstream interventions such as income supplementation and welfare reform were demonstrated to reduce the impacts of family adversity. Conclusion: Most intervention approaches focus on mitigating individual psychological harms and seek to address risk factors in isolation, which presents potentially significant gaps in intervention evidence. These interventions may not address the cumulative impacts of co-occurring risks, or social factors that may compound adversities.

Background Adolescence is characterized by identity formation, exploration and initiation of intimate relationships. Much of this occurs at school, making schools key sites of sexual harassment. Schools often lack awareness and understanding of the issue, and UK research on the topic is scarce. We explored prevalence and perceptions of sexual harassment in a school-based mixed-methods study of 13–17 year-old Scottish adolescents. Methods A student survey (N = 638) assessed past 3-months school-based victimization and perpetration prevalence via 17 behavioral items based on the most commonly used school-based sexual harassment measure (‘Hostile Hallways’). Eighteen focus groups (N = 119 students) explored which of 10 behaviors were perceived as harassing/unacceptable and why. Results Two-thirds reported any victimization: 64.7% ‘visual/verbal’ (e.g. sexual jokes) and 34.3% ‘contact/personally-invasive’ behaviors (e.g. sexual touching; most of whom also reported experiencing visual/verbal types) in the past 3-months. Data suggested a gateway effect, such that contact/personally-invasive behaviors are more likely to be reported by those also reporting more common visual/verbal behaviors. Some survey participants reported being unsure about whether they had experienced certain behaviors; and in focus groups, participants expressed uncertainty regarding the acceptability of most behaviors. Ambiguities centered on behavioral context and enactment including: degree of pressure, persistence and physicality; degree of familiarity between the instigator-recipient; and perception of the instigator’s intent. In attempting to resolve ambiguities, students applied normative schemas underpinned by rights (to dignity, respect and equality) and ‘knowingness’, usually engendered by friendship. Conclusions Our study confirms school-based sexual harassment is common but also finds significant nuance in the ways in which students distinguish between acceptable and harassing. School-based strategies to tackle sexual harassment must engage with this complexity.