Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jan 25;22(1):17.
doi: 10.1186/s12939-022-01794-2.

How do we best engage young people in decision-making about their health? A scoping review of deliberative priority setting methods

Affiliations

How do we best engage young people in decision-making about their health? A scoping review of deliberative priority setting methods

Daniella Watson et al. Int J Equity Health. .

Abstract

Introduction: International organisations have called to increase young people's involvement in healthcare and health policy development. We currently lack effective methods for facilitating meaningful engagement by young people in health-related decision-making. The purpose of this scoping review is to identify deliberative priority setting methods and explore the effectiveness of these in engaging young people in healthcare and health policy decision-making.

Methods: Seven databases were searched systematically, using MeSH and free text terms, for articles published in English before July 2021 that described the use of deliberative priority setting methods for health decision-making with young people. All titles, abstracts and full-text papers were screened by a team of six independent reviewers between them. Data extraction followed the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidelines. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis, structured around four components for evaluating deliberative processes: 1) representation and inclusion of diverse participants, 2) the way the process is run including levels and timing of participant engagement, 3) the quality of the information provided to participants and 4) resulting outcomes and decisions.

Findings: The search yielded 9 reviews and 21 studies. The more engaging deliberative priority setting tools involved young people-led committees, mixed methods for identifying and prioritising issues and digital data collection and communication tools. Long-term and frequent contact with young people to build trust underpinned the success of some of the tools, as did offering incentives for taking part and skills development using creative methods. The review also suggests that successful priority setting processes with young people involve consideration of power dynamics, since young people's decisions are likely to be made together with family members, health professionals and academics.

Discussion: Young people's engagement in decision-making about their health is best achieved through investing time in building strong relationships and ensuring young people are appropriately rewarded for their time and contribution. If young people are to be instrumental in improving their health and architects of their own futures, decision-making processes need to respect young people's autonomy and agency. Our review suggests that methods of power-sharing with young people do exist but that they have yet to be adopted by organisations and global institutions setting global health policy.

Keywords: Adolescents; Health decisions; Priority setting; Scoping review; Young people.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of key components for evaluating deliberative processes. Adopted from Abelson et al. 2003
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
PRISMA flow diagram

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sawyer SM, Azzopardi PS, Wickremarathne D, Patton GC. The age of adolescence. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018;2:223–228. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(18)30022-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arro R. Children and adolescents deserve a better future. Lancet. 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00006-X. - PubMed
    1. Clark H, Coll-Seck AM, Banerjee A, Peterson S, Dalglish SL, Ameratunga S, et al. A future for the world's children? A WHO–UNICEF–Lancet Commission. Lancet. 2020;395:605–658. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32540-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dalglish SL, Costello A, Clark H, Coll-Seck A. Children in all policies 2030: a new initiative to implement the recommendations of the WHO–UNICEF–Lancet Commission. Lancet. 2021;397:1605–1607. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00718-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. UNICEF . The state of the World's children 2011: adolescence - an age of opportunity. New York: UNICEF; 2011.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources