Adolescent and youth-friendly health interventions in low-income and middle-income countries

A scoping review

Dados Bibliográficos

ID21879703
AutoresCecilia Jakobsson (0000-0002-2952-7856, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust), Rhea Sanghavi (University of Washington), Joseph Nyamiobo (University of Nairobi), Caitlin Maloy (0000-0002-7925-9298, University of Washington), Arnold Mwanzu (0000-0002-0421-0377, Aga Khan University Hospital Nairobi), Katherine E Venturo-Conerly (0000-0003-3559-2491, Harvard University Press), Cyprian M Mostert (0000-0002-1911-9373, Aga Khan University Nairobi), Cyprian Mostert (Aga Khan University, Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya), Stefan Peterson (0000-0001-7203-3096, Karolinska Institutet), Manasi Kumar (0000-0002-9773-8014, University of Nairobi)
Ano2024
Volume9
Fascículo9
Páginase013393
Data de publicação2024-09-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoBMJ Global Health (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 2059-7908 • E-ISSN: 2059-7908
EditoraBMJ (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1136/bmjgh-2023-013393
PMID39242132
OpenAlexW4402324382
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas1
Referências citadas25

BACKGROUND: Adolescents comprise one-sixth of the world's population, yet there is no clear understanding of the features that promote adolescent-friendly services (AFS). The lack of clarity and consistency around a definition presents a gap in health services. METHODS: The review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed empirical studies to explore AFS in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) published between January 2000 and December 2022. The databases searched were CAB Direct (n=11), CINAHL (n=50), Cochrane Databases (n=1103), Embase (n=1164), Global Health Medicus (n=3636) and PsycINFO (n=156). The title, abstract and full text were double screened by three independent reviewers. Three independent reviewers assessed the study's quality using the Joanna Briggs Initiative Quality Appraisal and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tools. RESULTS: We identified the key components, barriers and facilitators of AFS. The following emerged from our review: a non-judgmental environment, culturally appropriate and responsive interventions and a focus on supporting marginalised communities often living in high-poverty settings. Using these components, we have extended guidance around a possible framework and tool assessing quality of AFS. INTERPRETATION: As LMICs are heterogeneous and unique, it was assumed that the operational definition of 'adolescent-friendly' might vary depending on different contexts, but there must be core components that remain consistent. Possible limitations of our review include a lack of grey literature. Potential future implications include training healthcare providers, testing these attributes for service improvement and future development and localisation of policy guidelines. KEY HIGHLIGHTS: Our review has mapped the research framing of AFS and provided a comprehensive review of barriers and facilitators to implementing a holistic outlook of AFS set-up in a tightly controlled research and real-world context. Our paper is one of the few efforts to synthesise behavioural and mental health elements underpinning AFS

Developing country · Economic growth · Economics · Environmental health · Low and middle income countries · Low income · Psychiatry · Psychological intervention · Socioeconomics · Adolescent and Pediatric Healthcare · Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health · Medicine · Psychology · School Health and Nursing Education