Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29587727›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2018

Assessing youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health services: a systematic review.

Amanda Mazur, Claire D Brindis, Martha J Decker

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

92 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Amanda MazurPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies and Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California Street, Suite 265, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0936, USA.
Claire D BrindisPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies and Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California Street, Suite 265, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0936, USA.
Martha J DeckerPhilip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies and Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California Street, Suite 265, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0936, USA. mara.decker@ucsf.edu.

Funding

UCSF/Kaiser-DOR Program for Developing Independent Women's Health ResearchersK12HD052163 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ADLER, NANCY E, BRINDIS, CLAIRE D. · 2005 to 2023
$9.3M
CROSS CULTURAL WORD RECOGNITIONR01HD027709 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF BELGRADE · PI LUKATELA, GEORGIJE L · 1991 to 1992
–
Maternal and Child Health Bureau U45MC27709NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD052163
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the last quarter century, there has been an emergence of evidence-based research directed toward the development, implementation, and assessment of youth-friendly health services (YFHS) to improve the delivery of sexual and reproductive health services for young people. Despite these research efforts, evidence supporting the effectiveness of YFHS is limited, which may be attributed to a lack of consensus on how to define and measure youth-friendliness to track progress and evaluate outcomes. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess how youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health services are measured worldwide.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of studies measuring youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health services at health facilities published between January 2000 and June 2015 using PubMed, Web of Science, and POPLINE databases. Additional studies were identified by reviewing references of selected articles. Studies were screened to identify measurements and indicators that have been used to measure YFHS.

resultsOur review identified 20 studies from an initial search of more than 11,000 records, including six from high-income countries and 14 from low-and middle-income countries. The review identified 115 indicators used for measuring youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health services. Our review found a lack of consistency in the tools and indicators used to measure YFHS. The three most frequently assessed domains were accessibility, staff characteristics and competency, and confidentiality and privacy. The majority of the indicators were not specific to young people's needs and often reflected basic standards of care.

conclusionsThis review shows the need for standardization and prioritization of indicators for the evaluation of YFHS. The results can be used to identify a core set of indicators that can be incorporated into a framework for assessing youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health services. There is a need to further distinguish between those variables that may have greatest impact on the use of services by young people, such as respect and privacy, those that impact the quality of services offered, and those that have limited relevance. Conducting more rigorous studies using a refined set of indicators is critical to measure and compare the impact and effectiveness of YFHS efforts.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdolescent Health ServicesClinical CompetenceConfidentialityHealth Services AccessibilityHealth Services ResearchHumansProfessional-Patient RelationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproductive Health ServicesAdolescentGlobalIndicatorsMeasurementSexual and reproductive health servicesYouth-friendly

Identifiers

PMID29587727
PMCPMC5870922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.