4.6 Review

Assessment of Youth-Friendly Health Care: A Systematic Review of Indicators Drawn From Young People's Perspectives

Journal

JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH
Volume 52, Issue 6, Pages 670-681

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.12.014

Keywords

Health services research; Health care quality; Evaluation; Youth engagement; Youth-friendly; Adolescent-friendly; Young people; Young people's perspectives; Acceptability; Satisfaction; Experience of care

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To review the literature on young people's perspectives on health care with a view to defining domains and indicators of youth-friendly care. Methods: Three bibliographic databases were searched to identify studies that purportedly measured young people's perspectives on health care. Each study was assessed to identify the constructs, domains, and indicators of adolescent-friendly health care. Results: Twenty-two studies were identified: 15 used quantitative methods, six used qualitative methods and one used mixed methodology. Eight domains stood out as central to young people's positive experience of care. These were: accessibility of health care; staff attitude; communication; medical competency; guideline-driven care; age appropriate environments; youth involvement in health care; and health outcomes. Staff attitudes, which included notions of respect and friendliness, appeared universally applicable, whereas other domains, such as an appropriate environment including cleanliness, were more specific to particular contexts. Conclusion: These eight domains provide a practical framework for assessing how well services are engaging young people. Measures of youth-friendly health care should address universally applicable indicators of youth-friendly care and may benefit from additional questions that are specific to the local health setting. (C) 2013 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available