4. Results
on the usefulness of a ‘child health profile’ designed to provide health information
and to encourage young people to take responsibility for their health (Hill and
Morton, 2003).
4.3.4 Studies examining uptake
Five studies were potential sources of evidence about how to optimise the uptake
of life checks. One of these studies had examined issues of uptake alongside
effectiveness (Puskar et al., 1996). Other studies focused solely on uptake issues
(Klein et al., 2005; Knishkowy et al., 2000; Sarmiento et al., 2004; Selby et al.,
1995).
Three studies examined uptake of routine or annual health check-ups for children
and young people. One study evaluated an intervention to increase attendance at
such check-ups, while two studies simply explored reasons why some children
and young people attended check-ups and others did not. Selby et al. (1995)
compared the effectiveness of mailed pamphlets, phone calls and home visits to
increase the uptake of Medicaid child health screenings in the USA. Klein et al.
(2005) explored the reasons why young people in Canada attended (or did not
attend) for annual health checkups, using analysis of small group discussions. In
a secondary analysis of a longitudinal study of adolescent health, Sarmiento et al.
(2004) examined correlates of attendance for routine physical examinations
among Latin American young people in the USA.
Two studies considered uptake issues in relation to programmes which offered
young people an assessment of their health behaviours and/or their emotional
health, followed by tailored advice from a health professional. Knishkowy et al.
(2000) evaluated the effectiveness of two different invitation protocols to an
adolescent preventive health programme in a USA primary-care setting. The
protocols differed in their emphasis on young people’s autonomy and parental
responsibility. Puskar et al. (1996) discussed the possibilities of ‘at-a-distance’
mental health screening to reach rural young people in the USA.
4.3.5 Screening tools
We identified sixteen studies which developed and/or evaluated screening or
health assessment tools for children and young people. Only one of these tools
was developed or tested among young people in the UK. Evaluated tools ranged
from those with a fairly narrow focus (e.g. the assessment of health behaviours) to
multi-dimensional tools with a wide-ranging focus (e.g. behaviours and lifestyle,
physical health, emotional health, social support, achievement, and environment).
Seven studies evaluated tools that were designed to be used in schools at school-
based health centres or by school nurses. Two of the tools focused on the
assessment of health behaviours or lifestyle and were tested among young
people in the USA (Gall, 2002) and Taiwan (Chen et al., 2003). Chatterjee and
Chatterjee (2005) evaluated a tool to assess exposure to a ‘health risk
environment’ with young people in India. Helseth et al. (2005) evaluated a health
related quality of life tool - covering self-esteem and emotional health, physical
health, friends and school - among young people in Norway. Ronning et al.
(2004) evaluated the utility of a tool designed to assess emotional problems
and/or social difficulties for young people in Norway. Scherrer and Stevens (1997)
evaluated a tool to assess health promotion and health education needs with
young people in Australia. Finally, Vaughn et al. (1996) evaluated a tool to assess
A scoping review of the evidence relevant to life checks for young people aged 9 to 14 years
21