A Scoping Review of Adolescent Health Indicators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".