Access to healthcare for adolescents is often overlooked in the United States due to federal and state-sponsored insurance programs such as Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. While these types of programs provide some relief, the issue of healthcare access goes beyond insurance coverage and includes an array of ecological factors that hinder youths from receiving services. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify social-ecological barriers to adolescents’ healthcare access and utilization in the United States. We followed the PRISMA and scoping review methodological framework to conduct a comprehensive literature search in eight electronic databases for peer-reviewed articles published between 2010 and 2020. An inductive content analysis was performed to thematize the categories identified in the data extraction based on the Social-Ecological Model (SEM). Fifty studies were identified. Barriers across the five SEM levels emerged as primary themes within the literature, including intrapersonal-limited knowledge of and poor previous experiences with healthcare services, interpersonal-cultural and linguistic barriers, organizational-structural barriers in healthcare systems, community-social stigma, and policy-inadequate insurance coverage. Healthcare access for adolescents is a systems-level problem requiring a multifaceted approach that considers complex and adaptive behaviors.

No abstract

This manuscript introduces a new framework for creating innovations in public health—the Framework for Public Health Innovation. The framework was developed through a longitudinal qualitative research study that investigated the process of creating innovative adolescent health programs. Interviews were conducted with a national sample of 26 organizations over two time points. Data collection focused on the process of innovative program development; organizational capacity; training; and technical assistance needs, successes, and barriers. The framework was developed and modified based on interview findings and expert advice; then, the final framework was validated with content experts. The framework illustrates a dynamic process of innovation that begins with dissatisfaction with the status quo, and then, illustrates three necessary components for innovation—space, process, and partnerships. Four categories of innovation, which range in complexity, are proposed: (1) creating a new component to an existing program, (2) adapting an existing program to meet new needs, (3) taking an alternative approach to addressing an existing program, and (4) reframing a health problem from a new perspective. As illustrated by a feedback loop, the resulting innovations disrupt the status quo. This model can be applied to any content area in public health and is useful for both research and practitioners.

No abstract

Background Teen pregnancy prevention in the United States has traditionally focused on the development, testing, and subsequent implementation of a set of evidence-based programs (EBPs), recommended nationally. However, these existing EBPs often do not prioritize the most at-risk or vulnerable populations. Methods The Innovative Teen Pregnancy Prevention Programs (iTP3) project was funded to facilitate the development of new, innovative programs to reach disparate populations. Through a mixed methods design, iTP3 evaluated the process and resulting innovative programs from five iterative cohorts of funded organizations, referred to as Innovators. iTP3 utilized both a traditional funding model with more traditional methods of capacity building assistance, but transitioned over time to a design-focused funding model in which organizations and individuals developed innovative programs through an intensive human centered design process. Results Evaluation results showed that the resulting portfolio of programs had differences in the types of programs resulting from the differing funding models. Notable differences among programs from the two funding models include program length, along with personnel, time, and resources needed to develop and manage. Conclusion Both traditional and design funding models led to innovative programs, with notable differences in the development process and resulting programs.