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.

School-based interventions TO Prevent Dating and Relationship Violence and Gender-Based Violence: STOP-DRV-GBV systematic review.

Background: Schools have a duty of care to prevent violence between students but a significant amount of dating and relationship violence and gender-based violence occurs in schools. These are important public health issues with important longitudinal consequences for young people. Objectives: To understand functioning and effectiveness of school-based interventions for the prevention of dating and relationship violence and gender-based violence. Review methods: We undertook a mixed-methods systematic review to synthesise different types of evidence relating to school-based interventions for the prevention of dating and relationship violence and gender-based violence to understand if, how and in what ways these interventions are effective. We searched 21 databases and 2 trial registers and undertook forwards and backwards citation chasing, author contact and other supplementary search methods. Searches identified all literature published to June 2021. All screening was undertaken in duplicate and independently, and we quality appraised all included studies. Results: We included 247 reports (68 outcome evaluations, 137 process evaluations). Synthesis of intervention components produced an intervention typology: single-component, curricular, multicomponent, and multilevel programmes. Synthesis of intervention theories suggested that interventions aiming to increase students' sense of school belonging and sense of safety in the school building could encourage increased learning of prosocial skills and increased prosocial peer norms, and so potentially reducing dating and relationship violence and gender-based violence. Synthesis of factors affecting delivery highlighted school organisation and leaders who believed in the importance of addressing dating and relationship violence/gender-based violence, along with time and resources to deliver the interventions. The ease with which the intervention could be delivered and modified was also important. Meta-analysis found stronger evidence for intervention effectiveness in reducing dating and relationship violence than for gender-based violence, with significant long-term impacts on dating and relationship violence victimisation and perpetration, and some evidence that interventions in high-income countries could be effective for reducing victimisation and perpetration of gender-based violence in the long-term. Impacts on knowledge and attitudes were primarily short-term. Network meta-analysis did not suggest superiority of any intervention type. Moderation evidence suggested interventions reduced dating and relationship violence perpetration in boys more than girls, but reduced gender-based violence perpetration more in girls. Metaregression by intervention component did not explain heterogeneity in effectiveness, but qualitative comparative analysis suggested that reducing perpetration was important to reducing victimisation, and that perpetration could be reduced via focus on interpersonal skills, guided practice and (for gender-based violence) implementation of social structural components. Limitations: Despite an exhaustive search, trials may have been missed and risk of publication bias was high for several analyses. Conclusions: This is the most comprehensive systematic review of school-based interventions for dating and relationship violence and gender-based violence to date. It is clear that the prevention of dating and relationship violence and gender-based violence in schools will require longer-term investment to show benefit. Future work: Future research is needed to understand why intervention effectiveness appears stronger for dating and relationship violence than gender-based violence. Study registration: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020190463. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130144) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 3. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Schools are places where dating and relationship violence and gender-based violence occur. Therefore, interventions conducted within schools are ideally placed to prevent and reduce dating and relationship violence and gender-based violence. We reviewed existing research on these interventions, exploring how they were expected to work, what factors affected their implementation in practice, how they had an impact on dating and relationship violence and gender-based violence, and what specific parts of the interventions were most effective and in what contexts. We defined what sort of evidence to include in the review, carried out a comprehensive search and found 247 reports on school-based interventions to prevent dating and relationship violence or gender-based violence, most of which were conducted in North America. Most interventions aimed to provide students with the knowledge, attitudes and skills needed to prevent perpetration and victimisation. They varied in complexity; some had one activity, others had multiple activities, some were integrated into the existing school curricula and others were complex in that they sought to change how schools as a whole respond to dating and relationship violence or gender-based violence. We theorised that complex interventions would bring about greater and more sustainable change, but this was not supported by our findings. The implementation of interventions was affected by factors such as school organisation and leaders who believed in the importance of addressing dating and relationship violence/gender-based violence, along with time and resources to deliver the interventions. The ease with which the intervention could be delivered and modified was also important. There was stronger evidence for intervention effectiveness in reducing dating and relationship violence than for gender-based violence, with significant long-term impacts on dating and relationship violence victimisation and perpetration. There was some evidence that interventions in high-income countries could be effective for reducing victimisation and perpetration of gender-based violence in the long-term. More complicated interventions were not more effective, and interventions tended to reduce dating and relationship violence perpetration in boys more than in girls. We have also been able to identify where there are gaps in available evidence, which may provide avenues for future research.

Re-orientating systematic reviews to rigorously examine what works, for whom and how: Example of a realist systematic review of school-based prevention of dating and gender violence.

Conventional systematic reviews offer few insights into for whom and how interventions work. 'Realist reviews' examine such questions via examining 'context-mechanism-outcome configurations' (CMOCs) but are insufficiently rigorous in how evidence is identified, assessed and synthesised. We developed 'realist systematic reviews', addressing similar questions to realist reviews but using rigorous methods. We applied this to synthesising evidence on school-based prevention of dating and relationship violence (DRV) and gender-based violence (GBV). This paper reflects on overall methods and findings, drawing on papers reporting each analysis. Drawing on intervention descriptions, theories of change and process evaluations, we developed initial CMOC hypotheses: interventions triggering 'school-transformation' mechanisms (preventing violence by changing school environments) will achieve larger effects than those triggering 'basic-safety' (stopping violence by emphasising its unacceptability) or 'positive-development' (developing students' broader skills and relationships) mechanisms; however, school transformation would only work in schools with high organisational capacity. We used various innovative analyses, some of which aimed to test these hypotheses and some of which were inductive, drawing on available findings to augment and refine the CMOCs. Overall, interventions were effective in reducing long-term DRV but not GBV or short-term DRV. DRV prevention occurred most effectively via the 'basic-safety' mechanism. 'School-transformation' mechanisms were more effective in preventing GBV but only in high-income countries. Impacts on long-term DRV victimisation were greater when working with a critical mass of participating girls. Impacts on long-term DRV perpetration were greater for boys. Interventions were more effective when focusing on skills, attitudes and relationships, or lacking parental involvement or victim stories. Our method provided novel insights and should be useful to policy-makers seeking the best interventions for their contexts and the most information to inform implementation.

Are school-based interventions to prevent dating and relationship violence and gender-based violence equally effective for all students? Systematic review and equity analysis of moderation analyses in randomised trials.

School-based interventions for the prevention of dating and relationship violence (DRV) and gender-based violence (GBV) take advantage of universal opportunities for intervention. Information on differential effectiveness of interventions is important to assess if they ameliorate or worsen social gradients in specific outcomes. This is especially important in DRV and GBV prevention given the gendered context of these behaviours and their common aetiologies in patriarchal gender norms, and social acceptance in school contexts of sexual harassment, such as catcalling or unwanted groping. We undertook a systematic review of moderation analyses in randomised trials of school-based interventions for DRV and GBV prevention. We searched 21 databases and used supplementary search methods without regard to publication type, language or year of publication, and synthesised moderation tests relating to equity-relevant characteristics (principally sex and prior history of the outcome) for DRV and GBV perpetration and victimisation. Across 23 included outcome evaluations, programme effects on DRV victimisation were not moderated by gender or prior experience of DRV victimisation, but DRV perpetration outcomes were greater for boys, particularly for emotional and physical DRV perpetration. Findings for GBV outcomes were counterintuitive. Our findings suggest that practitioners should carefully monitor local intervention effectiveness and equity to ensure that interventions are working as intended. However, one of the most surprising findings from our analysis-with clear relevance for uncertainties in practice-was that differential impacts by sexuality or sexual minority status were not frequently evaluated.

School-Based Interventions to Prevent Dating and Relationship Violence and Gender-Based Violence: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Background. Schools are sites of dating and relationship violence (DRV) and of gender-based violence (GBV) victimization and perpetration. School-based interventions can reach a broad range of students, targeting both individual and group processes that may underpin DRV and GBV. Considering DRV and GBV jointly is important because of their shared etiologies. Comparing the effectiveness of interventions using network meta-analysis (NMA) can support decision-making on optimal resource use. Objectives. To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of school-based interventions for children aged 5 to 18 years on DRV and GBV victimization, perpetration, and related mediators. Search Methods. We searched 21 databases in July 2020 and June 2021, alongside extensive supplementary search methods, including gray literature searches, forward and backward citation chasing, and searches on first and last author names. Selection Criteria. We included randomized-controlled trials of interventions for children of compulsory school age implemented within the school setting, and either partially or wholly aimed at changing DRV or GBV outcomes. Data Collection and Analysis. Pairwise meta-analyses using random-effects robust variance estimation considered intervention effectiveness on DRV and GBV victimization and perpetration using odds ratios, and on mediators (e.g., knowledge and attitudes) using standardized mean differences. Effects were divided into short-term (< 12 months postbaseline) and long-term (≥ 12 months postbaseline). NMAs on victimization and perpetration outcomes compared interventions categorized by breadth of mechanism and complexity of delivery and implementation. Meta-regression tested sensitivity to percentage of girls in the trial sample and country context. Main Results. Our analysis included 68 trials. Evidence was stronger overall for effects on DRV than for GBV, with significant long-term impacts on DRV victimization (odds ratio [OR] = 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.68, 0.99) and DRV perpetration (OR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.64, 0.94). Knowledge and attitudinal effects were predominantly short-term (e.g., for DRV-related violence acceptance, d = 0.16; 95% CI = 0.08, 0.24). NMAs did not suggest the superiority of any intervention type; however, most analyses for GBV outcomes were inconsistent. A higher proportion of girls in the sample was associated with increased effectiveness on long-term victimization outcomes. Author's Conclusions. Evidence is stronger for DRV than for GBV, despite considerable heterogeneity. Certainty of findings was low or very low overall. Public Health Implications. Violence reductions may require more than 1 school year to become apparent. More extensive interventions may not be more effective. A possible reason for stronger effectiveness for DRV is that whereas GBV is ingrained in school cultures and practices, DRV is potentially more open to change via addressing individual knowledge and attitudes. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(3):320-330. https://doi.org/10.2105/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307153).

Systematic Review of the Economics of School-Based Interventions for Dating Violence and Gender-Based Violence.

Dating and relationship violence (DRV) and gender-based violence (GBV) among children and young people incur a high cost to individuals and society. School-based interventions present an opportunity to prevent DRV and GBV early in individuals' lives. However, with school resources under pressure, policymakers require guidance on the economics of implementing interventions. As part of a large systematic review funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), we searched for economic evaluations and costing studies of school-based interventions for DRV and GBV. No formal economic evaluations were identified. Seven studies reporting costs, cost savings, or resource use for eight interventions were identified. The largest costs of implementing interventions were related to staff training and salaries but savings could be made by implementing interventions on a large scale. The potential cost savings of avoided DRV and GBV far outweighed the costs of implementation.

Exploring the Activities and Target Audiences of School-Based Violence Prevention Programs: Systematic Review and Intervention Component Analysis.

Adolescents are at an increased risk for experiencing dating and relationship violence (DRV) and gender-based violence (GBV). School-based interventions remain an important and frequently used method for DRV/GBV prevention. A clear understanding and description of the different components of school-based interventions specific to DRV/GBV is needed to organize and advance the array of prevention efforts being utilized in school settings. We conducted an intervention component analysis to create a taxonomy for school-based interventions addressing DRV and GBV. We searched 21 databases in July 2020 and updated searches in June 2021, alongside extensive supplementary search methods. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adolescents of compulsory school-age that were implemented within the school setting which partially or wholly focused on DRV and GBV topics. Our analysis included 68 studies describing 76 different school-based interventions. Through an iterative coding process we identified 40 intervention components organized within 13 activity categories, including both student-directed components and non-student-directed components such as activities for school personnel and family members of students. We also identified components addressing higher levels of the social-ecological model including structural-social and structural-environmental aspects of DRV/GBV which prior reviews have not considered. This taxonomy of components and synthesis of intervention efficacy for DRV/GBV school-based interventions provides a framework for comparing past intervention evaluations and constructing new interventions to address these issues at multiple levels within a community.

Implementation and delivery of group consultations for young people with diabetes in socioeconomically deprived, ethnically diverse settings.

BACKGROUND: Young people with diabetes experience poor clinical and psychosocial outcomes, and consider the health service ill-equipped in meeting their needs. Improvements, including alternative consulting approaches, are required to improve care quality and patient engagement. We examined how group-based, outpatient diabetes consultations might be delivered to support young people (16-25 years old) in socio-economically deprived, ethnically diverse settings. METHODS: This multi-method, comparative study recruited a total of 135 young people with diabetes across two implementation and two comparison sites (2017-2019). Informed by a 'researcher-in-residence' approach and complexity theory, we used a combination of methods: (a) 31 qualitative interviews with young people and staff and ethnographic observation in group and individual clinics, (b) quantitative analysis of sociodemographic, clinical, service use, and patient enablement data, and (c) micro-costing analysis. RESULTS: Implementation sites delivered 29 group consultations in total. Overall mean attendance per session was low, but a core group of young people attended repeatedly. They reported feeling better understood and supported, gaining new learning from peers and clinicians, and being better prepared to normalise diabetes self-care. Yet, there were also instances where peer comparison proved difficult to manage. Group consultations challenged deeply embedded ways of thinking about care provision and required staff to work flexibly to achieve local tailoring, sustain continuity, and safely manage complex interdependencies with other care processes. Set-up and delivery were time-consuming and required in-depth clinical and relational knowledge of patients. Facilitation by an experienced youth worker was instrumental. There was indication that economic value could derive from preventing at least one unscheduled consultation annually. CONCLUSIONS: Group consulting can provide added value when tailored to meet local needs rather than following standardised approaches. This study illustrates the importance of adaptive capability and self-organisation when integrating new models of care, with young people as active partners in shaping service provision. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN reference 27989430.

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.

An overview of the main messages from key data on young people's health in the UK.

Having access to good data on the health of 10-24 year olds is essential for targeting services and improving health outcomes for this age group. We identify the main UK population level data compendiums that include young people, outline some clear messages those data tell us about the state of youth health and suggest what this means for setting priorities for policy and practice.Although 10-24 year olds in the UK are generally in good health, the data reveal some trends that suggest the need for more prevention and early intervention during adolescence and early adulthood to protect their health now, their future health and the health of their own families later down the line. Particular concerns include preventable mortality, mental health trends, rates of obesity and the need to promote self-management of long-term conditions arising in the transition to adulthood.

Adolescent mental health difficulties and educational attainment: findings from the UK household longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines whether there is an independent association between mental difficulties in adolescence and educational attainment at age 16. DESIGN: Longitudinal study. SETTING: Nationally representative data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) were linked to the National Pupil Database for England. PARTICIPANTS: Respondents (N=1100) to the UKHLS between 2009 and 2012 were linked to the National Pupil Database to investigate longitudinal associations between mental difficulties at ages 11-14 and educational attainment at age 16 (General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE)). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Not gaining five or more GCSE qualifications at age 16, including English and maths at grade A*-C. RESULTS: An atypical total mental health difficulty score measured using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire at ages 11-14 predicted low levels of educational attainment at age 16 (OR: 3.11 (95% CI: (2.11 to 4.57)). Controlling for prior attainment and family sociodemographic factors, happiness with school (/work) and parental health, school engagement and relationship with the child partially attenuated the association, which was significant in the fully adjusted model (2.05, 95% CI (1.15 to 3.68)). The association was maintained in the fully adjusted model for males only (OR: 2.77 (95% CI (1.24 to 6.16)) but not for females. Hyperactivity disorder strongly predicted lower attainment for males (OR: 2.17 (95% CI: (1.11 to 4.23)) and females (OR: 2.85 (95% CI (1.30 to 6.23)). CONCLUSION: Mental difficulties at ages 11-14 were independently linked to educational success at age 16, highlighting an important pathway through which health in adolescence can determine young people's life chances.

A call for standardised age-disaggregated health data.

The 2030 Sustainable Development Goals agenda calls for health data to be disaggregated by age. However, age groupings used to record and report health data vary greatly, hindering the harmonisation, comparability, and usefulness of these data, within and across countries. This variability has become especially evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, when there was an urgent need for rapid cross-country analyses of epidemiological patterns by age to direct public health action, but such analyses were limited by the lack of standard age categories. In this Personal View, we propose a recommended set of age groupings to address this issue. These groupings are informed by age-specific patterns of morbidity, mortality, and health risks, and by opportunities for prevention and disease intervention. We recommend age groupings of 5 years for all health data, except for those younger than 5 years, during which time there are rapid biological and physiological changes that justify a finer disaggregation. Although the focus of this Personal View is on the standardisation of the analysis and display of age groups, we also outline the challenges faced in collecting data on exact age, especially for health facilities and surveillance data. The proposed age disaggregation should facilitate targeted, age-specific policies and actions for health care and disease management.

A Scoping Review of Adolescent Health Indicators.

PURPOSE: A host of recent initiatives relating to adolescent health have been accompanied by varying indicator recommendations, with little stakeholder coordination. We assessed currently included adolescent health-related indicators for their measurement focus, identified overlap across initiatives, and determined measurement gaps. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to map the existing indicator landscape as depicted by major measurement initiatives. We classified indicators as per 33 previously identified core adolescent health measurement areas across five domains and by age groups. We also identified indicators common across measurement initiatives even if differing in details. RESULTS: We identified 413 indicators across 16 measurement initiatives, with most measuring health outcomes and conditions (162 [39%]) and health behaviors and risks (136 [33%]); followed by policies, programs, and laws (49 [12%]); health determinants (44 [11%]); and system performance and interventions (22 [5%]). Age specification was available for 221 (54%) indicators, with 51 (23%) focusing on the full adolescent age range (10-19 years), 1 (<1%) on 10-14 years, 27 (12%) on 15-19 years, and 142 (64%) on a broader age range including adolescents. No definitional information, such as numerator and denominator, was available for 138 indicators. We identified 236 distinct indicators after accounting for overlap. CONCLUSION: The adolescent health measurement landscape is vast and includes substantial variation among indicators purportedly assessing the same concept. Gaps persist in measuring systems performance and interventions; policies, programs, and laws; and younger adolescents' health. Addressing these gaps and harmonizing measurement is fundamental to improve program implementation and accountability for adolescent health globally.

Priority Areas for Adolescent Health Measurement.

PURPOSE: We establish priority areas for adolescent health measurement and identify current gaps, aiming to focus resources on the most relevant data to improve adolescent health. METHODS: We collected four critical inputs to inform priority setting: perspectives of youth representatives, country priorities, disease burden, and existing measurement efforts. Health areas identified from the inputs were grouped, mapped, and summarized according to their frequency in the inputs. Using a Delphi-like approach, international experts then selected core, expanded, and context-specific priority areas for adolescent health measurement from all health areas identified. RESULTS: Across the four inputs, we identified 99 measurement areas relevant to adolescent health and grouped them under six domains: policies, programs, laws; systems performance and interventions; health determinants; health behaviors and risks; subjective well-being; and health outcomes and conditions. Areas most frequently occurring were mental health and weight status in youth representatives' opinions; sexual and reproductive health and HIV/AIDS in country policies and perspectives; road injury, self-harm, skin diseases, and mental disorders in the disease burden analysis; and adolescent fertility in measurement initiatives. Considering all four inputs, experts selected 33 core, 19 expanded, and 6 context-specific adolescent health measurement areas. CONCLUSION: The adolescent health measurement landscape is vast, covering a large variety of topics. The foci of the measurement initiatives we reviewed do not reflect the most important health areas according to youth representatives' or country-level perspectives, or the adolescent disease burden. Based on these inputs, we propose a set of priority areas to focus national and global adolescent health measurement.

Getting health services right for 16-25 year-olds.

The 2019 NHS England Long Term Plan set out the ambition to work across the 0-25 age range to support children and young people as they make the transition to early adulthood. Within this broad age bracket, how do we ensure we get health services right for 16-25 year-olds including the transfer to adult services? In this paper, we explore the evidence supporting youth-friendly and developmentally appropriate healthcare approaches and what these mean in practice for young people and healthcare professionals. Examples from primary and secondary care, as well as the perspectives of a young person, illustrate the challenges and solutions.

Young victims of youth violence: using youth workers in the emergency department to facilitate 'teachable moments' and to improve access to services.

There have been rising concerns in the UK about the levels of serious violence between young people, especially serious physical violence and knife crime. Interactions with young people in the emergency department (ED) at the time of injury provide an opportunity for screening and intervention in order to reduce the risk of repeat attendances. However, paediatricians and other healthcare workers can feel unsure about the best way to intervene. Embedding youth workers in EDs has started in some UK hospitals, making use of a potential 'teachable moment' in the immediate aftermath of an event to help change behaviour. Based on a rapid review of the literature, we summarise the evidence for these types of interventions and present two practice examples. Finally, we discuss how EDs could approach the embedding of youth workers within their department and considerations required for this.

Promises and Perils of Group Clinics for Young People Living With Diabetes: A Realist Review.

Group clinics are becoming popular as a new care model in diabetes care. This evidence synthesis, using realist review methodology, examined the role of group clinics in meeting the complex needs of young people living with diabetes. Following Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis-Evolving Standards (RAMESES) quality standards, we conducted a systematic search across 10 databases. A total of 131 articles met inclusion criteria and were analyzed to develop theoretically informed explanations of how and why group clinics could work (or not) for young people with diabetes. Models of group-based care in the literature varied significantly and incorporated different degrees of clinical and educational content. Our analysis identified four overarching principles that can be applied in different contexts to drive sustained engagement of young people in group clinics: 1) emphasizing self-management as practical knowledge; 2) developing a sense of affinity between patients; 3) providing safe, developmentally appropriate care; and 4) balancing group and individual needs. Implementation of group clinics was not always straightforward; numerous adjustments to operational and clinical processes were required to establish and deliver high-quality care. Group clinics for young people with diabetes offer the potential to complement individualized care but are not a panacea and may generate as well as solve problems.

Public health for paediatricians:How can behavioural economics help to make paediatric practice more effective?

Understanding the principles of behavioural economics is important for paediatricians because behavioural economics offers ideas to help improve the quality of paediatric care. It can also be used to inform health interventions/policy at a population level. This paper summarises key behavioural economic concepts such as bounded rationality, bounded willpower and social influence, explaining how they can be used to shape healthy behaviours in children and adolescents. Case studies of interventions that have used behavioural economics principles (sometimes called 'nudge theory') are provided.