Skip to main content
Download PDF

Identification of health-related problems in youth: a mixed methods feasibility study evaluating the Youth Health Report System

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making volume 24, Article number: 64 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Because poor health in youth risk affecting their entry in adulthood, improved methods for their early identification are needed. Health and welfare technology is widely accepted by youth populations, presenting a potential method for identifying their health problems. However, healthcare technology must be evidence-based. Specifically, feasibility studies contribute valuable information prior to more complex effects-based research. The current study assessed the process, resource, management, and scientific feasibility of the Youth Health Report System prototype, developed within a youth health clinic context in advance of an intervention study.

Methods

This mixed-methods feasibility study was conducted in a clinical setting. The process, resource, management, and scientific feasibility of the Youth Health Report System were investigated, as recommended in the literature. Participants were youth aged 16–23 years old, attending a youth health clinic, and healthcare professionals from three clinics. The youth participants used their smart phones to respond to Youth Health Report System health questions and healthcare professionals used their computer to access the results and for registration system entries. Qualitative data were collected from interviews with healthcare professionals, which were described with thematic analysis. Youth participants’ quantitative Youth Health Report System data were analyzed for descriptive statistics.

Results

Feasibility analysis of qualitative data from interviews with 11 healthcare professionals resulted in three themes: We expected it could be hard; Information and routines helped but time was an issue; and The electronic case report form was valuable in the health assessment. Qualitative data were collected from the Youth Health Report System. A total of 54 youth participants completed the evaluation questionnaire, and healthcare professionals retrieved information from, and made post-appointment system entries. Quantitative results revealed few missing items and acceptable data variability. An assessment template of merged qualitative and quantitative data guided a consensus discussion among the researchers, resulting in acceptable feasibility.

Conclusions

The process-, resource-, management-, and scientific feasibility aspects were acceptable, with some modifications, strengthening the potential for a successful Youth Health Report System intervention study.

Peer Review reports

Background

Although young people in Western countries are relatively healthy [1], poor lifestyle and mental health issues decrease their well-being [1, 2]. Since the 1990s, and especially the last ten years, mental health issues have increased in children, adolescents, and young adults [3], and due to the COVID-19 pandemic, adolescents have become more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety [4]. Early mental health issue onset also poses risks to long-term quality of life [5, 6], as strong evidence links psychosocial problems during youth with poor mental health during adulthood [2, 7]. In the United States, screening for depression and suicide risk in adolescents 12–18 years old, is recommended [8], and for anxiety in ages 8–18 [9]. Broad screening for mental health issues has potential to lead to better health and prevent unnecessary morbidity and mortality [10]. This evidence gives, that there is need for early identification of health and health-related problems in young people, with methods adapted to their ways of living. The age span from childhood through adolescence to young people can be defined in many ways. Best describing this study’s population of young people is the United Nations’ definition ‘youth’ for 15 to 24 years old people [11].

In Sweden, mental health issues and psychosomatic symptoms (e.g., headache, sleeping problems, dizziness) have increased [12]. For the youth population, health and welfare technology (HWT) has been used to identify psychosocial issues [13,14,15] and improve health equity [16], since the HWT tool has been found to facilitate the sharing of feelings and increased the reporting of psychosocial issues [17]. In 2016, Sweden adopted the vision of becoming world-leading in digitalization and HWT by 2025, with aims to increase individuals’ health, reach health equity, increase independence, and ensure all citizens’ participation in society [18]. HWT use is developing in many health areas, targeting different populations [19,20,21].

HWT in the form of digital surveys can be effective to illuminate psychosocial issues [22]. Despite foundational needs for evidence testing of effectiveness for use of HWT [23], in the healthcare setting the evidence of effectiveness of HWT is often missing [24]. Thus, this third study in a participatory research project attempts to explore evidence for feasibility of a HWT in the setting of youth health clinics (YHC). Previously, two studies have been reported, describing the development and usability evaluation of an electronic health assessment tool [25, 26].

The objective with the current study was to assess the process, resources, management, and scientific feasibility aspects of a Youth Health Report System prototype, developed within a YHC clinical context, in advance of an intervention Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial. Specifically, within each feasibility aspect, the intention was to answer the questions:

  1. 1.

    Process: Is the recruitment potential and process adequate for a successful future intervention study?

  2. 2.

    Resources: Is there adequate resources to administer the study procedure as planned? Is the Information Technology (IT)-platform accessible to provide the possibility to deliver the intervention?

  3. 3.

    Management: Is it possible to access data for use in the health assessment? Is it possible to understand the reported health data for use in the health assessment?

  4. 4.

    Scientific: Do the electronic evaluation questionnaire collected data have adequate quality?

Methods

Study design

This feasibility study [23, 27, 28], in which participants were assigned to the intervention or control group, used mixed methods to collect and analyze data [29]. Study reporting was guided by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement on randomized pilot and feasibility trials [30] and by Thabane et al. [27]. The study was registered (ISRCTN23855544).

Setting

In Sweden, healthcare is governed within regions. In all regions, YHCs offer first-line health services for those aged 13–25 years. YHCs are multi-professionally staffed, by midwives and physicians who primarily promote sexual health, and by healthcare counsellors and (occasionally) psychologists who promote mental health. Some YHCs also offer dietitian and physiotherapist counselling. YHCs can be run by the region, municipality, privately, or a combination of these actors, and each is led by a manager who has access to a consulting physician [31].

Participants

This feasibility study included participants from two YHCs in two regions of central Sweden, including a small rural clinic, a midsize urban clinic. The patient inclusion criteria were age 16–23, fluent in Swedish, and having a health-related YHC appointment. Based on previous years’ estimates of YHC visits, the target sample was 500 patients. We expected that 30% of the 500 would respond to the digital survey, based on the clinical experience of YHC healthcare professionals of youth survey engagement and that a realistic expectation for online surveys is 35–50% [32]. Further, to cover the cultural dimensions [33] of the YHC professionals, regarding profession and computer literacy, we sought to include at least six healthcare professionals.

Youth Health Report System

The research group previously developed and described the Youth Health Report System (Fig. 1) [26]. Briefly, the prototype system includes study and digital consent information, followed by an electronic evaluation questionnaire (henceforth, ‘evaluation questionnaire’). The evaluation questionnaire was used to collect research data at baseline and six-month follow-up on participant background, mental, physical, and sexual health, and social support. There were three intervention materials: the patient electronic health report form (henceforth, ‘intervention questionnaire’); the patient electronic case report form (henceforth, ‘case report’); and the healthcare professional electronic action report form (for reporting planned post-healthcare assessment actions).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Youth Health Report System features and their uses

Full size image

Procedure

The healthcare professionals at the small YHC participated in the usability evaluation and were thus interviewed previously. They were informed about the study and gave verbal and written consent. Figure 2 provides an overview of the full study procedure.

At the midsize YHC, youth participants were recruited from April 6 through June 23, 2021. Due to the forthcoming summer vacation, and hence fewer YHC visits, the planned 15-week study period necessarily became 12 weeks, including a preparation phase before beginning the intervention phase. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, YHC drop-in visits were prohibited, and healthcare visits were generally sparse, resulting in a very limited number of potential youth participants. Youth participants were allocated to either the control or intervention group (Fig. 2) based on the timing of their YHC appointment. These steps were designed to mimic a Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Data collection points starting with the previous interviews, the control group, and intervention group periods

Full size image

When making a YHC appointment, youth participants were registered (with their name, social security number, and smartphone number) in the information technology platform (IT-platform) by a healthcare professional. The IT-platform, with secure data collection according to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) [34], then sent the patient a short message service (SMS) with study information and digital consent to the young person’s smart phone. After receiving the information, it was demanded to consent participation in the study by clicking ‘yes’. When consenting, the youth participants gained access to and responded to questions about their health and background characteristics in the evaluation questionnaire. Those who did not complete the survey received a reminder SMS the same day and again three days later.

The healthcare professionals at the midsize YHC, who performed the feasibility study procedure, provided informed verbal consent, and later mailed their written consent to the first author.

Control group

The study began with a two-week control phase (Fig. 2). All youth participants visiting the YHCs during this period received an SMS with study information, a digital link to video information (2 min, 6 s), a written information document, and digital consent. The video contained short information about the study purpose, the research principal, the research procedure, if participation concerned control- or intervention group, what kind of questions were included, that participation was voluntary and that regret to participate would not affect the reception at the YHC. Further, the video included information on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), how data were stored, and who to turn to with any questions. The written information document contained this information in detail. Upon consenting, the patient gained access to the evaluation questionnaire via their smartphone and responded prior to their YHC appointment. Youth participants in the control group were offered the usual care.

Between the control and intervention groups, a 10-day period was used to prepare the YHC healthcare professionals for the intervention and to finalize intervention procedures. This duration was determined with input from the YHC manager.

Intervention group

The intervention group was recruited for eight weeks (Fig. 2). All youth participants with YHC appointments during this period were offered the intervention. The intervention group received the same information as the control group, with an addition about the intervention questionnaire health questions, and the digital consent. Upon consenting and completing the evaluation questionnaire, they received a second SMS with the intervention questionnaire prototype. The healthcare professional then used the case report in their health assessment during the appointment.

The intervention had two parts: the intervention questionnaire and the case report (Table 1). The intervention questionnaire contained background questions and the reason for the YHC visit, followed by lifestyle and health questions using reliable, validated patient-reported outcome questionnaires. At the end of each health area, self-efficacy questions assessed first, the patient’s perceived need to make changes to improve their health and/or reduce health risks, and second, the patient’s behavior change self-efficacy [26].

Table 1 Characteristics of the instruments included in the evaluation questionnaire
Full size table

Intervention questionnaire responses were then compiled in the IT-platform to form the case report, which displayed graphs of health and/or health risk levels in green (good health/low risk), yellow (increased poor health risk/risky health behavior), and red (apparent poor health risk/risky health behavior) as a health status overview for the YHC healthcare professional. An extract from the case report data is displayed in Fig. 3. When possible, the levels were based on the questionnaire’s instructions; otherwise, the research group determined cutoff scores based on clinical experience and expert advice. The case report also included text descriptions after the graphs.

The YHC healthcare professionals were instructed on reviewing the case report on the IT-platform, interpreting its graphs, and using it as background information during the patient health assessment. Other than confirming that the patient’s responses had been received, each healthcare professional was at liberty to use the case report in their assessment (during that appointment or a future one).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Case report example, with each health risk indicated by color, subject, and score

Full size image

Data collection

To assess the process (recruitment potential), resource (study administration, IT-platform satisfaction), and management (data accessibility, case report interpretation) feasibility, we adapted the Thabane et al. classification system [27].

Qualitative data

Qualitative data were used to explore process (recruitment potential), resource (study administration, IT-platform satisfaction), and management (data accessibility, case report interpretation) feasibility.

From a previous study in the project [26], unanalysed data from interviews with YHC healthcare professionals, were also used to solicit healthcare professionals’ opinions. Data from the current study were collected in focus groups with the midsize YHC healthcare professionals. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the interviews were conducted online. The first author performed all interviews, and one co-author (ÅR) participated in two interviews.

Quantitative data

Quantitative data for evaluating process (recruitment potential) and scientific (data variance, missing items) feasibility were collected from the IT-platform and evaluation questionnaire. Patient background (age, biological sex, living situation, marital status, country of birth, employment, and education level) and health data were also collected from the IT-platform. Mental health items were from: the Short Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (SWEMWBS) [35]; The Minneapolis-Manchester Quality of Life instrument (MMQoL) [36]; and the Sense of Mastery Scale (SOMS-7) [37]. Physical health items were from the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) [38]. Sexual health items were three self-efficacy questions [39, 40]. Social support items were from the Oslo 3-item Social Support Scale (OSSS-3) [41]. Table 1 provides a description of the evaluation questionnaire content, health questions, response options, and references to studies of validity.

Data analysis

Qualitative data

Qualitative data analysis of the focus group and individual interviews were performed using theoretical thematic analysis [42].

Quantitative data

Quantitative data analyses were performed in Microsoft Office 365 - applications for business; Excel version 15601.20660, and in cooperation with co-author MM. These analyses included summary descriptive statistics for scientific feasibility. The feasibility assessment procedure is presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Data analyses for youth health clinic feasibility assessments
Full size table

Results

In total, 182 youth participants with a YHC appointment were assessed for study eligibility to the feasibility study, among whom 101 visited the midsize YHC during the control phase and 81 during the intervention phase. A total of 17 youth participants completed the intervention questionnaire and had a case report generated for use by the healthcare professional and patient during the patient’s health assessment. Figure 4 is a participant flowchart for the control and intervention groups.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Flow diagram of study enrollment, dropout, and questionnaire completion

Full size image

Participant characteristics

A total of 54 participants in the control and intervention groups completed the evaluation questionnaire. They were predominantly female (89.4%), with a mean age of 18.4 years, born in Sweden (97.9%), and living with parent/guardian (72.3%). Some participants had current contact with other health services (25.5%), mostly for help with mental health (53.8%) (Table 3). There were no significant differences between the intervention and control groups at baseline.

Table 3 Participating youth’s background characteristics
Full size table

Eleven healthcare professionals from two YHCs participated. Those from the midsize YHC were counsellors (n = 3), psychologists (n = 3), a midwife (n = 1), and an assistant nurse (n = 1); those from the small YHC were a counsellor (n = 1), a midwife (n = 1), and a manager (n = 1). One participating healthcare professional was male.

Qualitative evaluation of process, resource, and management feasibility

Thematic analysis of the healthcare providers’ interviews identified themes for process, resource, and management feasibility (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Model of qualitative themes, connected to each feasibility type

Full size image

Process feasibility—recruitment potential

We expected recruitment would be hard

The slow recruitment rate confirmed YHC healthcare professionals’ previous experiences and was a study concern. They discussed the potential solution of rewarding youth participants who participated, as well as the ethical dilemma of doing so.

Resource feasibility—study administration, IT-platform satisfaction

Information and routines helped, but time was an issue

YHC healthcare professionals found the video, written education material, and online educational meetings helpful for understanding how to use the IT-platform. They pointed out the need for creating routines to make tasks smoother. Regarding finding time for youth participants to respond to the intervention questionnaire in a future trial study, they discussed opportunities and challenges (e.g., including the health assessment response time).

Management feasibility—data accessibility, case report interpretation

The case report was valuable in the health assessment

YHC healthcare professionals found the case report information useful in the health assessment context and thought it could also be used in follow-up assessments. Those from both YHCs identified both benefits and challenges to using the case report. They were positive regarding its health information and reported gaining new knowledge from its use. The case report histogram (Fig. 2) colors were easily understood, and the healthcare professionals appreciated that the text responses enhanced their understanding of the histograms. They believed the case report could be used for follow-up health assessments. However, some were unable to access the case report histograms, and thus based their assessment on only the text responses. They also worried that the case report might increase their workload. It was expressed that the case report may be more useful for midwives than for psychologists and counsellors, based on the local YHCs’ protocols and the self-developed health assessment used by the latter professionals.

Quantitative evaluation of process and scientific feasibility

Process feasibility—recruitment potential

Approximately 26% of the youth participants invited to participate agreed to do so.

Scientific feasibility—data variance, missing items

A total of 54 youth participants in the control and intervention groups responded to the evaluation questionnaires. Four of six patient-reported outcome questionnaires had missing items. The number of missing items in the evaluation questionnaire was low overall, ranging from 0 to < 5%. Table 4 provides an overview of each questionnaire’s numbers of items, possible responses, and data missing. Overall, the patient-reported outcome questionnaire data were normally distributed.

Table 4 Patient-reported outcome questionnaires and their numbers of items, possible responses, and missing data
Full size table

Merging qualitative and quantitative data

The qualitative and quantitative data sets were merged through a research group discussion. Overall, the criteria for process (recruitment potential), resource (study administration, IT-platform satisfaction), management (data accessibility, case study interpretation), and scientific (data variance, missing items) feasibility (Table 5) were considered fulfilled. Potential improvements were also recognized. For example, there was an apparent need for the research group to offer the healthcare professionals supportive routines for using the IT-platform and accessing the case report. Overall, progression to a Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial was considered feasible, with some modifications. The merged feasibility results and modification comments are presented in Table 5.

Table 5 Merged qualitative and quantitative results, leading to feasibility evaluation and comments
Full size table

Discussion

The findings in this study show that the Youth Health Report System, including the intervention questionnaire and case report, was feasible regarding process (recruitment potential), resources (study administration, IT-platform satisfaction), and management (data accessibility, case report interpretation). Scientific feasibility of the questionnaire (data variance, missing items) was also found to be acceptable. Some issues were also identified for improvement before proceeding with future studies, including finding time for youth participants to respond to the evaluation and intervention questionnaires, time for discussing the case report during the health assessment, and ensuring that healthcare professionals feel secure with extracting the case report from the IT-platform.

The health care professionals raised concerns about difficulties recruiting youth participants, based on previous experiences. The challenge of engaging youth in research may be their lack of availability during school hours and holidays, or that they are unable to make decisions autonomously [43]. Recruitment was also challenged by limited YHC visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, among the 182 youth participants asked to participate, 26% consented and participated. This corresponds with HWT response rates in other healthcare settings [44], indicating that our recruitment procedure is feasible. Compared with the study protocol registration, the executed study was shorter in duration than planned, because fewer service staff were available during the summer. This further affected recruitment: The control phase was two weeks instead of three, and the intervention phase was eight weeks instead of 12. There was also a 10-day preparation between the control and intervention phases. Overall, the study was performed over 12 weeks instead of the planned 15 weeks, which may also have affected recruitment. Overall, process feasibility was considered good for future studies.

The COVID-19 pandemic time period was unique. All healthcare professional education sessions were online but seemed to work well. However, the number of young people who came to the YHC for support was limited due to national social restriction, and hence affected the recruitment of youth participants. Also, the number of digital visits to the YHC increased rapidly. This may have posed a challenge for the healthcare professionals who lacked confidence in using computers and thus made it more difficult to use the case report, compared to regular in-person-visits. However, an open-minded and problem-solving approach to the rapid technological changes in healthcare was also recognized to be potentially positive [45]. Furthermore, there is no certain way to know if and how the health assessment conversation was affected, because there were no such evaluations made.

Before the control and interventions phase, all healthcare professionals participated in online meetings and were provided with an information video and written material to help them use the IT-platform and perform study-specific tasks. The healthcare professionals reported finding the educational sessions helpful. A scoping review found that technology is integral to modern pedagogy [46]. This indicates that the shift to the digital sessions does not propose a barrier. However, in the current study, some healthcare providers reported being unable to find the case report graphs, and thus used only the text responses. Although this shows a need to support healthcare professionals to develop work routines, it also confirms that the text responses were useful for the health assessment. All considered, the resource feasibility was acceptable.

The healthcare professionals were concerned that their workloads would increase, though they also expressed that this new management method may be helpful. It is known that user expectations influence their willingness to use HWT [47]. A systematic review identified a variety of barriers and facilitators to implementing HWT in older adults and persons with disabilities. YHC healthcare professionals work with young people, but such barriers and facilitators may also apply to their context. Barriers and facilitators were not specifically explored in this study and are thus important for future implementation assessments. Nevertheless, the research group consensus discussion found that management feasibility was acceptable.

Scientific feasibility concerns data variance and missing items. Missing items were found in four of the six patient-reported outcome questionnaires, with < 5% missing items, respectively. No data were missing at the constructive level (i.e., all patient-reported outcome questionnaires had data represented on all items). Although missing data is a risk for biased estimates, it is possible to adjust for this statistically to minimize such risk [48], indicating feasibility for using the patient-reported outcome questionnaires in future studies.

Although developing and using HWT in healthcare is in line with the Swedish vision of becoming world-leading in digitalization and HWT [18], before the intervention questionnaire could be implemented at YHCs, an effectiveness study [24] in the right healthcare context [23] was needed. A potential contextual finding herein was that YHC healthcare professionals found the case report information more beneficial for midwives than for psychologists and counsellors. This finding may not be transferable, because psychologists are not common to YHC healthcare staff and the YHC where these professionals work used a self-developed mental health questionnaire. YHCs are staffed in various ways [49] and thus may not all be equally prepared to conduct mental health assessments. Hence, the intervention questionnaire and case report may be considered useful for all healthcare professionals at other YHCs.

One study limitation was the impossibility of dropout analysis due to the unavailability of records on youth participants who declined to participate. A dropout analysis is important to estimate bias between treatment arms and intervention effects. However, this was not an intervention effect study and thus such information was not critical to any health data results [50]. However, in future studies, it would be valuable to know more about the young people who chose not to participate, and why. Another limitation may be the risk for healthcare professionals to either over-, or under interpret the case report, perhaps due to the many included health questionnaires, or due to the graphs’ colorings. However, the interpretation is intended to take place in collaboration with each youth responding to the questions. Hence, the health professionals need to check of the assessment with the young person to ensure correct interpretation of the response.

This study used a mixed-methods approach with a merged display of qualitative and quantitative results [29]. It is the third in our series of participatory research reports, aimed at developing and evaluating the Youth Health Report System for YHCs [25, 26]. The participants were predominantly female and born in Sweden. Although greater diversity is valuable, the study sample reflected the 90% female YHC patient population [51], indicating transferability to other YHCs.

Challenges to consider when performing a feasibility trial include which results are emphasized. Statistical effects and predictions are often highlighted over feasibility, while the latter is the main goal of pilot/feasibility studies [27]. Planning and reporting this study was structured and strengthened by guidance from Thabane et al. [27] and the CONSORT extension for pilot trials [30].

Future research priorities include testing the effects of the intervention questionnaire and case report, and studying the implementation of the intervention questionnaire, at YHCs.

Conclusions

Process, resource, management, and scientific feasibility, evaluated through merged qualitative and quantitative data, were acceptable and strengthened the potential for progress in future studies, with modifications. One of the most important emergent modifications was that although they found the case report valuable in the health assessment, healthcare professionals need support for integrating the case report into their clinical work routines.

Data availability

Pseudonymized data may be available from the corresponding author upon request and subject to GDPR and Swedish Ethical Review Authority requirements.

Abbreviations

HWT:

health and welfare technology

IT-platform:

information technology platform

GDPR:

general data protection regulation

SMS:

short message service

SWEMWBS:

Short Warwick-Edinburg Mental Well-Being Questionnaire

IPAQ:

International Physical Activity Questionnaire

OSSS-3:

Oslo 3-item Social Support Scale

CONSORT:

consolidated standards of reporting trials

YHC:

youth health clinic

SD:

standard deviation

References

  1. World Health Organization. Adolescent and young adult health. 2022 updated August 10 2022. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/adolescents-health-risks-and-solutions.

  2. World Health Organization. Adolescent mental health. 2021. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/adolescent-mental-health.

  3. Dalman C, Bremberg S, Åhlén J, Ohlis A, Agardh E, Wicks S, et al. Mental well-being, mental distress and mental disorders among children and young adults– English summary. FORTE; 2021.

  4. Meherali S, Punjani N, Louie-Poon S, Abdul Rahim K, Das JK, Salam RA et al. Mental Health of children and adolescents amidst COVID-19 and Past Pandemics: a Rapid systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(7).

  5. Weitkamp K, Daniels JK, Romer G, Wiegand-Grefe S. Health-related quality of life of children and adolescents with mental disorders. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:129.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Dey M, Mohler-Kuo M, Landolt MA. Health-related quality of life among children with mental health problems: a population-based approach. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Scott KM, McLaughlin KA, Smith DA, Ellis PM. Childhood maltreatment and DSM-IV adult mental disorders: comparison of prospective and retrospective findings. Br J Psychiatry: J Mental Sci. 2012;200(6):469–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mangione CM, Barry MJ, Nicholson WK, Cabana M, Chelmow D, Coker TR, et al. Screening for depression and suicide risk in children and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2022;328(15):1534–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mangione CM, Barry MJ, Nicholson WK, Cabana M, Coker TR, Davidson KW, et al. Screening for anxiety in children and adolescents: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2022;328(14):1438–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Goodyear-Smith F, Martel R, Darragh M, Warren J, Thabrew H, Clark TC. Screening for risky behaviour and mental health in young people: the YouthCHAT programme. Public Health Rev. 2017;38:20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. United Nations. Global Issues Youth. Available from: https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/youth.

  12. The Public Health Agency of Sweden. Barn och unga (Children and young). 2021 updated 2022-11-14. Available from: https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/livsvillkor-levnadsvanor/halsa-i-olika-grupper/barn-och-unga/.

  13. Thabrew H, Goodyear-Smith F. Youth version, case-finding and help Assessment Tool (YouthCHAT): an electronic, psychosocial screener for young people with long-term physical conditions. J Paediatr Child Health. 2019;56(1):102–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Martel RM, Darragh ML, Lawrence AJ, Shepherd MJ, Wihongi T, Goodyear-Smith FA. YouthCHAT as a primary Care E-Screening Tool for Mental Health issues among Te Tai Tokerau Youth: protocol for a Co-design Study. JMIR Res Protocols. 2019;8(1):e12108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Thabrew H, Kumar H, Goldfinch M, Cavadino A, Goodyear-Smith F. Repeated psychosocial screening of High School Students using YouthCHAT: Cohort Study. JMIR Pediatr Parent. 2020;3(2):e20976.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Graham GN, Ostrowski M, Sabina AB. Population health-based approaches to utilizing digital technology: a strategy for equity. J Public Health Policy. 2016;37(Suppl 2):154–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bradford S, Rickwood D. Acceptability and utility of an electronic psychosocial assessment (myAssessment) to increase self-disclosure in youth mental healthcare: a quasi-experimental study. BMC Psychiatry. 2015;15:305.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Swedish Government. Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions S. Hälsa 2025: A strategy for implementing Vision for eHealth 2025. The next step. 2020.

  19. Riis CL, Stie M, Bechmann T, Jensen PT, Coulter A, Möller S, et al. ePRO-based individual follow-up care for women treated for early breast cancer: impact on service use and workflows. J Cancer Surviv. 2021;15(4):485–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wannheden C, Åberg-Wennerholm M, Dahlberg M, Revenäs Å, Tolf S, Eftimovska E, et al. Digital Health Technologies Enabling Partnerships in Chronic Care Management: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(8):e38980.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Ehn M, Derneborg M, Revenäs Å, Cicchetti A. User-centered requirements engineering to manage the fuzzy front-end of open innovation in e-health: a study on support systems for seniors’ physical activity. Int J Med Inf. 2021;154:104547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ho J, Fong CK, Iskander A, Towns S, Steinbeck K. Digital psychosocial assessment: an efficient and effective screening tool. J Paediatr Child Health. 2020;56(4):521–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wamala Andersson S, Richardson M, Cozza M, Lindén M, Redekop K. Addressing evidence in health and welfare technology interventions from different perspectives. Health Policy Technol. 2021;10(2):100519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Richardson MX, Landerdahl Stridsberg S, Wamala Andersson S. Evidence-related requirements in Swedish public sector procurement of health and welfare technologies - a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):357.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Lostelius P, Mattebo M, Söderlund A, Revenäs Å, Thors Adolfsson E. An electronic patient-reported outcome created based on my needs is worth using: an explorative qualitative study investigating young people’s opinions for a health assessment tool. J Patient-Reported Outcomes. 2022;6(1):29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lostelius P, Mattebo M, Adolfsson ET, Söderlund A, Andersén M, Vadlin S, et al. Development and usability evaluation of an electronic health report form to assess health in young people: a mixed-methods approach. BMC Med Inf Decis Mak. 2023;23(1):91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Thabane L, Ma J, Chu R, Cheng J, Ismaila A, Rios LP, et al. A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Lancaster GA, Thabane L. Guidelines for reporting non-randomised pilot and feasibility studies. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2019;5:114.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research Design. Qualitative, quantitative & mixed methods approaches. 5th ed. London, United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd.; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Eldridge SM, Chan CL, Campbell MJ, Bond CM, Hopewell S, Thabane L, et al. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016;2:64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. The Swedish Society for Youth Centers. Handbook for Swedish Youth Centers. 2015. Available from: http://www.fsum.nu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/handbok_original_utskrift.pdf.

  32. L’Ecuyer KM, Subramaniam DS, Swope C, Lach HW. An Integrative Review of Response Rates in nursing research utilizing online surveys. Nurs Res. 2023;72(6):471–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. McGrath C, Palmgren PJ, Liljedahl M. Twelve tips for conducting qualitative research interviews. Med Teach. 2019;41(9):1002–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Euopean Union, GDPR EUROPAPARLAMENTETS OCH RÅDETS FÖRORDNING (EU). 2016/ 679 - av den 27 april 2016 - om skydd för fysiska personer med avseende på behandling av personuppgifter och om det fria flödet av sådana uppgifter och om upphävande av direktiv 95/ 46/ EG (allmän dataskyddsförordning). In: Parliament E, editor. 2016.

  35. Koushede V, Lasgaard M, Hinrichsen C, Meilstrup C, Nielsen L, Rayce SB, et al. Measuring mental well-being in Denmark: validation of the original and short version of the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS and SWEMWBS) and cross-cultural comparison across four European settings. Psychiatry Res. 2019;271:502–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bhatia S, Jenney ME, Bogue MK, Rockwood TH, Feusner JH, Friedman DL, et al. The Minneapolis-Manchester Quality of Life instrument: reliability and validity of the adolescent form. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(24):4692–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pearlin LI, Schooler C. The structure of coping. J Health Soc Behav. 1978;19(1):2–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjostrom M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(8):1381–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Bandura A, Guide for constructing Self-Efficacy Scales. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents [Internet]. Greenwich, CT, USA.: Information Age Publishing INC; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Dalgard SOBJ. Community health profile with special emphasis on social environment and mental health. Nordic J Psychiatry 1996 50:sup3721–7.

  42. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Gaillard S, Malik S, Preston J, Escalera BN, Dicks P, Touil N, et al. Involving children and young people in clinical research through the forum of a European Young Persons’ Advisory Group: needs and challenges. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2018;32(4):357–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Horn ME, Reinke EK, Mather RC, O’Donnell JD, George SZ. Electronic health record-integrated approach for collection of patient-reported outcome measures: a retrospective evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):626.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Shah S, Diwan S, Kohan L, Rosenblum D, Gharibo C, Soin A, et al. The Technological Impact of COVID-19 on the future of Education and Health Care Delivery. Pain Physician. 2020;23(4s):367–s80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Barbosa ML, Atanasio LLM, Medeiros SG, Saraiva C, Santos VEP. Evolution of nursing teaching in the use of education technology: a scoping review. Rev Bras Enferm. 2021;74(suppl 5):e20200422.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Zander V, Gustafsson C, Landerdahl Stridsberg S, Borg J. Implementation of welfare technology: a systematic review of barriers and facilitators. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021:1–16.

  48. Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistcs. 5th ed. London, UK.: SAGE Publications Ltd.; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  49. FSUM Swedish Society for Youth Centers. Gudielines for Swedish Youth Centers. 2016. Available from: http://www.fsum.nu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/guidelines_1.pdf.

  50. Bell ML, Kenward MG, Fairclough DL, Horton NJ. Differential dropout and bias in randomised controlled trials: when it matters and when it may not. BMJ (Clinical Res ed). 2013;346:e8668.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner. Ungdomsmottagningar och ungas sexuella hälsa. Nuläge och vägen framåt.; 2020. Report No.: ISBN 978-91-7585-880-7.

  52. The World Medical Association I. WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical principles for medical research involving humab subjects 1964 updated 2021. Available from: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/.

  53. Anthony R, Moore G, Page N, Hewitt G, Murphy S, Melendez-Torres GJ. Measurement invariance of the short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale and latent mean differences (SWEMWBS) in young people by current care status. Qual life Research: Int J Qual life Aspects Treat care Rehabilitation. 2022;31(1):205–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Haver A, Akerjordet K, Caputi P, Furunes T, Magee C. Measuring mental well-being: a validation of the short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being scale in Norwegian and Swedish. Scand J Public Health. 2015;43(7):721–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Eklund M, Erlandsson LK, Hagell P. Psychometric properties of a Swedish version of the Pearlin Mastery Scale in people with mental illness and healthy people. Nord J Psychiatry. 2012;66(6):380–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Kocalevent RD, Berg L, Beutel ME, Hinz A, Zenger M, Härter M, et al. Social support in the general population: standardization of the Oslo social support scale (OSSS-3). BMC Psychol. 2018;6(1):31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Einberg EL, Kadrija I, Brunt D, Nygren JN, Svedberg P. Psychometric evaluation of a Swedish version of Minneapolis-Manchester quality of life-youth form and adolescent form. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:79.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all participating youth participants and healthcare professionals for their study contributions.

Funding

The authors disclose receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Region Västmanland (LTV 939219) and the Regional Research Council (RFR 939311). The funding bodies played no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

Open access funding provided by Uppsala University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Innovation, Research and Education, Region Västmanland, Västmanland Hospital Västerås, Västerås, Sweden

    Petra V. Lostelius

  2. School of Health, Care and Social Welfare, Mälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden

    Petra V. Lostelius, Anne Söderlund, Åsa Revenäs & Magdalena Mattebo

  3. Clinic for Pain Rehabilitation Västmanland, Region Västmanland, Västerås, Sweden

    Petra V. Lostelius

  4. Centre for Clinical Research Dalarna, Uppsala University, Falun, Sweden

    Catharina Gustavsson

  5. School of Health and Welfare, Dalarna University, Falun, Sweden

    Catharina Gustavsson

  6. Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Catharina Gustavsson

  7. Centre for Clinical Research, Region Västmanland– Uppsala University, Västerås, Sweden

    Petra V. Lostelius, Eva Thors Adolfsson & Åsa Revenäs

  8. Orthopedic Clinic, Västerås Hospital Region Västmanland, Västerås, Sweden

    Åsa Revenäs

  9. University Health Care Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden

    Ann-Britt Zakrisson

Authors
  1. Petra V. Lostelius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catharina Gustavsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eva Thors Adolfsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anne Söderlund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Åsa Revenäs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ann-Britt Zakrisson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Magdalena Mattebo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The first and corresponding author (PVL) was involved in planning, data collection and analysis, and manuscript writing. Authors ETA, AS, ÅR, and MM took part in study planning, data analysis, and manuscript writing. Authors CG and ABZ took part in data analysis and manuscript writing. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Petra V. Lostelius.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Regional Ethics Committee of Uppsala, Sweden (dnr 2020 − 01921), performed according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki [52], and registered before beginning in the ISCTN registry (ISRCTN23855544 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN23855544). All participants gave informed consent before participating in the study.

Consent for publication

This report contains no detailed personal participant data.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lostelius, P.V., Gustavsson, C., Adolfsson, E.T. et al. Identification of health-related problems in youth: a mixed methods feasibility study evaluating the Youth Health Report System. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 24, 64 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-024-02465-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-024-02465-8

Keywords

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

ISSN: 1472-6947

Contact us