Towards Harmonized Adolescent Health Measurement: Assessing Alignment Between Current Recommendations and the Global Action for Measurement of Adolescent Health–Recommended Indicators

• Published in: Journal of adolescent health 2024-06, Vol.74 (6), p.S56-S65
• Main Authors: Newby, Holly, Massaquoi, Lamin, Guthold, Regina, Saewyc, Elizabeth, Abduvahobov, Parviz, Adebayo, Emmanuel, Azzopardi, Peter S., Dastgiri, Saeed, Ferguson, B. Jane, Friedman, Howard S., Giyava, Charity R., Kågesten, Anna E., Keogh, Sarah C., Moller, Ann-Beth, Saha, Kuntal Kumar, Marsh, Andrew D.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adolescent Health; Adolescents; Female; Global Health; Health Status Indicators; Health Surveys; Humans; Indicators; Male; Measurement; Medicin och hälsovetenskap; Monitoring
• ISSN: 1054-139X; 1879-1972; 1879-1972
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2024.01.018

This study identified alignment of indicators across different initiatives and data collection instruments as a foundation for future harmonization of adolescent health measurement. Using the Global Action for Measurement of Adolescent health (GAMA) recommended indicators as the basis for comparison, we conducted a desk review of 14 global-level initiatives, such as the Sustainable Development Goals and the Global Strategy for Women's, Children's and Adolescents' Health, and five multicountry survey programs, such as the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys and the Global school-based Student Health Survey. We identified initiative and survey indicators similar to a GAMA indicator, deconstructed indicators into standard elements to facilitate comparison, and assessed alignment to the corresponding GAMA indicator across each of the elements. A total of 144 initiative indicators and 90 survey indicators were identified. Twenty-four initiative indicators (17%) and 14 survey indicators (16%) matched the corresponding GAMA indicators across all elements. Population of interest was the most commonly discrepant element; whereas GAMA indicators mostly refer to ages 10–19, many survey and initiative indicators encompass only part of this age range, for example, 15–19-year-olds as a subset of adults ages 15–49 years. An additional 53 initiative indicators (39%) and 44 survey indicators (49%) matched on all elements except the population of interest. The current adolescent measurement landscape is inconsistent, with differing recommendations on what and how to measure. Findings from this study support efforts to promote indicator alignment and harmonization across adolescent health measurement stakeholders at the global, regional, and country levels.