Implementation of the WHO standards to assess the quality of care for children with acute diarrhoea: findings of a multicentre study (CHOICE) in Italy.

BACKGROUND: There is no documented experience in the use of the WHO standards for improving the quality of care (QOC) for children at the facility level. We describe the use of 10 prioritised WHO-Standard-based Quality Measures to assess QOC for children with acute diarrhoea (AD) in Italy. METHODS: In a multicentre observational study in 11 paediatric emergency departments with different characteristics and geographical location, we collected data on 3061 children aged 6 months to 15 years with AD and no complications. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Study findings highlighted both good practices and gaps in QoC, with major differences in QOC across facilities. Documentation of body weight and temperature varied from 7.7% to 98.5% and from 50% to 97.7%, respectively (p<0.001); antibiotic and probiotic prescription rates ranged from 0% to 10.1% and from 0% to 80.8%, respectively (p<0.001); hospitalisations rates ranged between 8.5% and 62.8% (p<0.001); written indications for reassessment were provided in 10.4%-90.2% of cases (p<0.001). When corrected for children's individual characteristics, the variable more consistently associated with each analysed outcome was the individual facility. Higher rates of antibiotics prescription (+7.6%, p=0.04) and hospitalisation (+52.9%, p<0.001) were observed for facilities in Southern Italy, compared with university centres (-36%, p<0.001), independently from children characteristics. Children's clinical characteristics in each centre were not associated with either hospitalisation or antibiotic prescription rates. CONCLUSIONS: The 10 prioritised WHO-Standard-based Quality Measures allow a rapid assessment of QOC in children with AD. Action is needed to identify and implement sustainable and effective interventions to ensure high QOC for all children.

Implementation of the WHO standards to assess quality of care for children with acute pain in EDs: findings of a multicentre study (CHOICE) in Italy.

BACKGROUND: There is little experience on the use of the WHO Standards for improving the quality of care (QOC) for children. We describe the use of four prioritised WHO Standard-based Quality Measures to assess the provision of care for children with pain in emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: In a multicentre observational study in 10 EDs with different characteristics in Italy, we collected data on 3355 children accessing the EDs between January 2019 and December 2020. The association between children and facility characteristics and quality measures was analysed through multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The proportion of children whose pain was measured was 68.7% (n=2305), with extreme variations across different centres (from 0.0% to 99.8%, p<0.001). The proportion of children treated for pain was 28.9% (n=970) again with a wide range (5.3%-56.3%, p<0.001). The difference between the frequency of children with pain measured and pain treated varied widely between the facilities (ranging from -24.3 to 82). Children with moderate and severe pain were more frequently treated (48.9% and 62.9% of cases, respectively), although with large variations across centres (ranges: 0%-74.8% and 0%-100% respectively, p<0.001). After correction for children's characteristics, the variable more strongly associated with analysed outcomes was the facility which the child accessed for care. Being a facility in Northern Italy was associated with a higher rate of pain measurement (67.3%-95% CI: 39.9% to 94.6%, p<0.001) compared with facilities in South Italy (-22.1% lower (95% CI: -41.7% to -2.50%, p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The use of few WHO Standard-based measures related to pain can help identifying priority gaps in QOC for children and in monitoring it over time. There is a need for more implementation research to establish which are the most sustainable and effective interventions to improve the QOC for acute pain in children.

Implementation of the WHO Standards to assess quality of paediatric care at the facility level using service users' perspective as source of data: a multicentre quality improvement study in Italy.

OBJECTIVES: There is little experience in the use of the WHO Standards for improving the quality of care (QOC) for children at the facility level. We describe the use of 75 WHO Standard based Quality Measures to assess paediatric QOC, using service users as a source of data, in Italy. STUDY DESIGN: In a cross-sectional study including 12 hospitals, parents/caregivers of admitted children completed a validated questionnaire including 75 Quality Measures: 40 pertinent to the domain of experience of care; 25 to physical/structural resources; 10 to COVID-19 reorganisational changes. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Answers from 1482 service users were analysed. Physical resources was the domain with the higher frequency of reported gaps in QOC, with key gaps (higher rates of responders reporting need for improvement and low variability across centres) being: (1) quality of meals (48.1%; range across facilities: 35.3%-61.7%); (2) presence of cooking areas (50.9%; range: 34.6%-70.0%); (3) spaces for family/friends (51.3%; range: 31.8%-77.4%). For experience of care, the most critical gap was the information on the rights of the child (76.6%; range: 59.9%-90.4%), with most other Quality Measures showing an overall frequency of reported need for improvement ranging between 5% and 35%. For reorganisational changes due to COVID-19 an improvement was felt necessary by <25% of responders in all Quality Measures, with low variability across centres. At the multivariate analyses, factors significantly associated with the QOC Index largely varied by QOC domain. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the 75 prioritised Quality Measures, specific to service users' perspective, enabled the identification of both general and facility-specific gaps in QOC. Based on these findings, quality improvement initiatives shall focus on a core list of selected Quality Measures common to all facilities, plus on an additional list of Quality Measures as more relevant in each facility.

Implementation of the WHO Standards to assess the quality of paediatric care using health workers as source of data: findings of a multicentre study (CHOICE) in Italy.

OBJECTIVES: There is little experience in implementing the WHO Standards for improving the quality of care (QOC) for children. We describe the use of 75 WHO-Standard based Quality Measures to assess paediatric QOC, using health workers (HWs) as data sources. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: 12 Italian hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: The minimum target of 75% of HWs was reached in all facilities; answers from 598 HWs were analysed. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: 75 prioritised WHO Quality Measures were collected using a validated, and Italian-language questionnaire exploring views of HWs providing care to children. A QOC index was also calculated based on the assessed Quality Measures. RESULTS: In both the domain of resources and work organisation, most Quality Measures showed a high overall frequency of reported 'need for improvement', with high variability across hospitals. Key needs for improvement included: availability of clear and complete protocols (eg, on paediatric emergencies: 44.6%; range 10.6%-92.6%); clear hospitalisation criteria for diarrhoea (50.5%; range 30.3%-71.7%); number of hand-washing stations (13.2%; range 3.4%-37.0%); equipped working rooms with computers for HWs (66.1%; range: 32.1%-97.0%); training (eg, on pain management: 43.5%; range 17.9%-76.7%), periodic discussion of clinical cases (43.5%; range 8.1%-83.7%) audits (48.8%; range 29.7%-76.7%); and all indicators related to system to improve QOC. Factors significantly associated with a lower QOC Index included HWs working in facilities in Southern Italy (p=0.001) and absence of a paediatric emergency department (p=0.011). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the 75 prioritised Quality Measures, specific to HWs provide valuable data on paediatric QOC, which can be used to drive a quality improvement process.

Adolescent health and well-being check-up programme in three African cities (Y-Check): protocol for a multimethod, prospective, hybrid implementation-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: During adolescence, behaviours are initiated that will have substantial impacts on the individual's short-term and long-term health and well-being. However, adolescents rarely have regular contact with health services, and available services are not always appropriate for their needs. We co-developed with adolescents a health and well-being check-up programme (Y-Check). This paper describes the methods to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, short-term effects and cost-effectiveness of Y-Check in three African cities. METHOD: This is a multi-country prospective intervention study, with a mixed-method process evaluation. The intervention involves screening, on-the-spot care and referral of adolescents through health and well-being check-up visits. In each city, 2000 adolescents will be recruited in schools or community venues. Adolescents will be followed-up at 4 months. The study will assess the effects of Y-Check on knowledge and behaviours, as well as clinical outcomes and costs. Process and economic evaluations will investigate acceptability, feasibility, uptake, fidelity and cost effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval has been received from the WHO (WHO/ERC Protocol ID Number ERC.0003778); Ghana Health Service (Protocol ID Number GHS-ERC: 027/07/22), the United Republic of Tanzania National Institute for Medical Research (Clearance No. NIMR/HQ/R.8a/Vol.IX/4199), the Medical Research Council of Zimbabwe (Approval Number MRCZ/A/2766) and the LSHTM (Approval Numbers 26 395 and 28312). Consent and disclosure are addressed in the paper. Results will be published in three country-specific peer-reviewed journal publications, and one multicountry publication; and disseminated through videos, briefs and webinars. Data will be placed into an open access repository. Data will be deidentified and anonymised. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06090006.

Indicators to Measure Adolescent Health at the Country, Regional, and Global Levels: Results of a Five-Year Selection Process by the Global Action for the Measurement of Adolescent Health.

PURPOSE: To improve adolescent health measurement, the Global Action for the Measurement of Adolescent health (GAMA) Advisory Group was formed in 2018 and published a draft list of 52 indicators across six adolescent health domains in 2022. We describe the process and results of selecting the adolescent health indicators recommended by GAMA (hereafter, "GAMA-recommended indicators"). METHODS: Each indicator in the draft list was assessed using the following inputs: (1) availability of data and stakeholders' perceptions on their relevance, acceptability, and feasibility across selected countries; (2) alignment with current measurement recommendations and practices; and (3) data in global databases. Topic-specific working groups comprised of GAMA experts and representatives of United Nations partner agencies reviewed results and provided preliminary recommendations, which were appraised by all GAMA members and finalized. RESULTS: There are 47 GAMA-recommended indicators (36 core and 11 additional) for adolescent health measurement across six domains: policies, programs, and laws (4 indicators); systems performance and interventions (4); health determinants (7); health behaviors and risks (20); subjective well-being (2); and health outcomes and conditions (10). DISCUSSION: These indicators are the result of a robust and structured five-year process to identify a priority set of indicators with relevance to adolescent health globally. This inclusive and participatory approach incorporated inputs from a broad range of stakeholders, including adolescents and young people themselves. The GAMA-recommended indicators are now ready to be used to measure adolescent health at the country, regional, and global levels.

Climate change impacts on child and adolescent health and well-being: A narrative review.

Background: Worldwide, the climate is changing and affecting the health and well-being of children in many ways. In this review, we provided an overview of how climate change-related events may affect child and adolescent health and well-being, including children's mental and physical health, nutrition, safety and security, learning opportunities, and family caregiving and connectedness. Methods: In this narrative review, we highlighted and discussed peer-reviewed evidence from 2012-23, primarily from meta-analyses and systematic reviews. The search strategy used a large and varied number of search terms across three academic databases to identify relevant literature. Results: There was consistent evidence across systematic reviews of impact on four themes. Climate-related events are associated with a) increases in posttraumatic stress and other mental health disorders in children and adolescents, b) increases in asthma, respiratory illnesses, diarrheal diseases and vector-borne diseases, c) increases in malnutrition and reduced growth and d) disruptions to responsive caregiving and family functioning, which can be linked to poor caregiver mental health, stress and loss of resources. Evidence of violence against children in climate-related disaster contexts is inconclusive. There is a lack of systematic review evidence on the associations between climate change and children's learning outcomes. Conclusions: Systematic review evidence consistently points to negative associations between climate change and children's physical and mental health, well-being, and family functioning. Yet, much remains unknown about the causal pathways linking climate-change-related events and mental and physical health, responsive relationships and connectedness, nutrition, and learning in children and adolescents. This evidence is urgently needed so that adverse health and other impacts from climate change can be prevented or minimised through well-timed and appropriate action.

The Global Shortage of School Nurses.

Calzolari and colleagues invited others to have an "open…professional dialogue" on how Italy can introduce school nurses into their system. This editorial is a response to that invitation. Although factors such as a broader nursing shortage and limited health resources definitely contribute to a global shortage of school nurses, three foundational reasons continue to challenge the demand for school nursing globally. The three reasons are traditional views and lack of understanding of the role of school nurses to address modern days challenges, inadequate system support and integration within education, and lack of data to illustrate value. These challenges must be addressed when discussing the inclusion of school nurses in education.

Effectiveness of a participatory approach to develop school health interventions in four low resource cities: study protocol of the 'empowering adolescents to lead change using health data' cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Comprehensive local data on adolescent health are often lacking, particularly in lower resource settings. Furthermore, there are knowledge gaps around which interventions are effective to support healthy behaviours. This study generates health information for students from cities in four middle-income countries to plan, implement and subsequently evaluate a package of interventions to improve health outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial in schools in Fez, Morocco; Jaipur, India; Saint Catherine Parish, Jamaica; and Sekondi-Takoradi, Ghana. In each city, approximately 30 schools will be randomly selected and assigned to the control or intervention arm. Baseline data collection includes three components. First, a Global School Health Policies and Practices Survey (G-SHPPS) to be completed by principals of all selected schools. Second, a Global School-based Student Health Survey (GSHS) to be administered to a target sample of n=3153 13-17 years old students of randomly selected classes of these schools, including questions on alcohol, tobacco and drug use, diet, hygiene, mental health, physical activity, protective factors, sexual behaviours, violence and injury. Third, a study validating the GSHS physical activity questions against wrist-worn accelerometry in one randomly selected class in each control school (n approximately 300 students per city). Intervention schools will develop a suite of interventions using a participatory approach driven by students and involving parents/guardians, teachers and community stakeholders. Interventions will aim to change existing structures and policies at schools to positively influence students' behaviour, using the collected data and guided by the framework for Making Every School a Health Promoting School. Outcomes will be assessed for differential change after a 2-year follow-up. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by WHO's Research Ethics Review Committee; by the Jodhpur School of Public Health's Institutional Review Board for Jaipur, India; by the Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research Institutional Review Board for Sekondi-Takoradi, Ghana; by the Ministry of Health and Wellness' Advisory Panel on Ethics and Medico-Legal Affairs for St Catherine Parish, Jamaica, and by the Comité d'éthique pour la recherche biomédicale of the Université Mohammed V of Rabat for Fez, Morocco. Findings will be shared through open access publications and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04963426.

Priority Indicators for Adolescent Health Measurement - Recommendations From the Global Action for Measurement of Adolescent Health (GAMA) Advisory Group.

PURPOSE: This article describes the selection of priority indicators for adolescent (10-19 years) health measurement proposed by the Global Action for Measurement of Adolescent health advisory group and partners, building on previous work identifying 33 core measurement areas and mapping 413 indicators across these areas. METHODS: The indicator selection process considered inputs from a broad range of stakeholders through a structured four-step approach: (1) definition of selection criteria and indicator scoring; (2) development of a draft list of indicators with metadata; (3) collection of public feedback through a survey; and (4) review of the feedback and finalization of the indicator list. As a part of the process, measurement gaps were also identified. RESULTS: Fifty-two priority indicators were identified, including 36 core indicators considered to be most important for measuring the health of all adolescents, one alternative indicator for settings where measuring the core indicator is not feasible, and 15 additional indicators for settings where further detail on a topic would add value. Of these indicators, 17 (33%) measure health behaviors and risks, 16 (31%) health outcomes and conditions, eight (15%) health determinants, five (10%) systems performance and interventions, four (8%) policies, programmes, laws, and two (4%) subjective well-being. DISCUSSION: A consensus list of priority indicators with metadata covering the most important health issues for adolescents was developed with structured inputs from a broad range of stakeholders. This list will now be pilot tested to assess the feasibility of indicator data collection to inform global, regional, national, and sub-national monitoring.

WHO standards-based tools to measure service providers' and service users' views on the quality of hospital child care: development and validation in Italy.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence showed that, even in high-income countries, children and adolescents may not receive high quality of care (QOC). We describe the development and initial validation, in Italy, of two WHO standards-based questionnaires to conduct an assessment of QOC for children and young adolescents at inpatient level, based on the provider and user perspectives. DESIGN: Multiphase, mixed-methods study. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: The two questionnaires were developed in four phases equally conducted for each tool. Phase 1 which included the prioritisation of the WHO Quality Measures according to predefined criteria and the development of the draft questionnaires. In phase 2 content face validation of the draft questionnaires was assessed among both experts and end-users. In phase 3 the optimised questionnaires were field tested to assess acceptability, perceived utility and comprehensiveness (N=163 end-users). In phase 4 intrarater reliability and internal consistency were evaluated (N=170 and N=301 end-users, respectively). RESULTS: The final questionnaires included 150 WHO Quality Measures. Observed face validity was excellent (kappa value of 1). The field test resulted in response rates of 98% and 76% for service users and health providers, respectively. Among respondents, 96.9% service users and 90.4% providers rated the questionnaires as useful, and 86.9% and 93.9%, respectively rated them as comprehensive. Intrarater reliability was good, with Cohen's kappa values exceeding 0.70. Cronbach alpha values ranged from 0.83 to 0.95, indicating excellent internal consistency. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings suggest these tools developed have good content and face validity, high acceptability and perceived utility, and good intrarater reliability and internal consistency, and therefore could be used in health facilities in Italy and similar contexts. Priority areas for future research include how tools measuring paediatric QOC can be more effectively used to help health professionals provide the best possible care.

Best Practice During Teleconsultations With Adolescents: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: Teleconsultations are increasingly used to deliver health care, yet guidance on how to maximize health outcomes and ensure the quality and rights-based principles of adolescent health care during teleconsultations is lacking. This scoping review synthesized the literature on teleconsultations with adolescents, with the objective of informing a practical guidance for healthcare professionals. METHODS: Eight databases were searched to identify articles published between 2010 and 2020 in English, French, or Spanish that provided evidence or guidance on synchronous teleconsultations with 10- to 19-year-olds. Web sites in six high-income countries and six low- to middle-income countries were also searched and a Google search was conducted. Data were analyzed using narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Of 59 total references, 51 were from high-income countries. References included primary research (n = 21), reviews (n = 13), clinical guidance (n = 9), case reports (n = 9), commentaries (n = 6), and a website (n = 1). Just under half (46%) were descriptive, qualitative, or expert opinion. The main focus was mental health and behavioral disorders. DISCUSSION: Good evidence on the complexities of conducting teleconsultations with adolescents is lacking. Questions remain regarding the scope and acuity of health issues for which teleconsultations are appropriate, their role in overcoming or contributing to inequalities, and the practicalities of conducting consultations.

Results of a Global Survey of Experts to Categorize the Suitability of Interventions for Inclusion in School Health Services.

PURPOSE: This global survey of experts assessed the suitability of different health-related interventions for inclusion in school health services (SHSs) to inform development of the World Health Organization global guideline on SHSs. METHODS: A review of 138 global World Health Organization publications identified 406 health service interventions for 5- to 19-year-old individuals. These were consolidated, pretested, and pilot-tested in a questionnaire as 86 promotion, prevention, care, or treatment interventions. A total of 1,293 experts were identified through purposive sampling of journal databases and professional networks. In July 2019, experts were invited to complete the questionnaire online in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, or Spanish. Respondents categorized each intervention as essential, highly suitable, suitable, or unsuitable in SHSs (everywhere or in certain geographic areas only). They could also suggest interventions. RESULTS: Interventions categorized most often as "Essential in SHSs everywhere" (70%-80%) are related to health promotion and health education. Clinical interventions categorized most often in this way (60%-68%) are related to immunization, screening, assessment, and general care. Interventions categorized most often as "Essential in SHSs in certain geographic areas only" (27%-49%) are related to immunization, mass drug administration, and health promotion. Interventions categorized most often as "Unsuitable in SHSs anywhere" (12%-14%) are related to screening of noncommunicable conditions. There were no important regional differences. Of 439 respondents from 81 countries, 188 suggested 378 additional interventions. Question order effect and/or purposive sampling biases may have influenced both quantitative and qualitative results for different types of intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Favorable responses to almost all interventions supported their World Health Organization guideline inclusion but provided little guidance for intervention prioritization.