Suchergebnisse

This special issue of the Journal of Youth Development on international positive youth development brings together diverse perspectives of research, practice, and policy regarding the challenges and opportunities facing international efforts to promote the positive development of youth. To represent a plurality of perspectives on international PYD, the authors sought to represent a variety of continents, countries, genders, races, ethnicities, sectors, and levels of experience with publishing. There is also variety in the types of articles such as case studies, presentations of frameworks and curricula, letter-style commentary by youth, and cutting-edge research methodologies and studies. A few key themes frame the volume, including (a) diversity in definitions of youth and operationalizations of PYD; (b) the multifaceted and multidimensional ways in which PYD is integrated into different sectors, domains, and types of programmatic and organizational contexts; and (c) the importance of and need for an accessible evidence base of PYD informed by rigorous science. Thought leader commentaries are interspersed in the beginning, middle, and end of the issue. The articles represent the current state of the field of PYD internationally with an outlook toward the future and how the integration of PYD research and practice can enhance contributions of youth to equity, social justice, and democracy.

Between 2015 and 2020, USAID invested in 17 country-focused and regional youth assessments to investigate young people's priorities and needs. This article analyzes the results of those assessments and their implications for youth programming and policy in low- and middle-income countries. Primary data collection, document review, and secondary data analysis form the basis for the findings presented in the article. Our analysis across all assessments focused on identifying the most marginalized and vulnerable youth within each country of focus and understanding youth's priorities and the barriers and facilitators for achieving them across the sectors. Securing a decent livelihood was the top priority cited by youth in each of the 17 assessments. The youth saw education as a step towards self-reliance and a better future. Older youth recognized the importance of gaining tangible work-related skills and wanted more opportunities to learn and apply these skills. Health priorities related to mental health, substance abuse prevention, and reproductive health, specifically early pregnancy. Young people expressed frustration that adults and society writ large do not hear their voices and acknowledged limited opportunities to develop leadership roles. Youth in conflict or unstable contexts expressed a strong desire to engage in their society. Common implications focus on sectoral programming, research, and policy using a positive youth development framework, acknowledging the importance of any program to foster cross-sectoral collaboration. Building awareness, improving coordination, and increasing the skills of actors supporting youth development—and ensuring youth are at the center of these efforts—increase the effectiveness and consistency of youth programming and policies as part of the enabling environment.

AbstractIntroductionWhile HIV index testing and partner notification (PN) services have the potential to reach adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) aged 15 to 24 and their sexual partners in need of HIV testing services, the potential social harms have not yet been studied. This commentary highlights the risks of this approach, including intimate partner violence (IPV), stigma and discrimination, and outlines an urgent research agenda to fully understand the potential harms of PN for AGYW, calling for the development of mitigation strategies.DiscussionA substantial evidence base exists demonstrating the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of index testing and partner notification for adults aged 18 years and older in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs), particularly for men, and for adults who are married/cohabiting and referring a current sexual partner. AGYW who are most vulnerable to HIV infection in LMICs do not reflect these demographics. Instead, they are often in age‐disparate partnerships, have limited negotiating power within relationships, experience high rates of violence and face economic challenges that necessitate transactional sex. PN services may be particularly difficult for adolescent girls under 18 who face restrictions on their decision making and are at increased risk of rape. Adolescent girls may also face coercion to notify partners due to unequal power dynamics in the provider–adolescent client relationship, as well as judgemental attitudes towards adolescent sexual activity among providers.ConclusionsAs index testing and PN with AGYW is already being rolled out in some LMICs, research is urgently needed to assess its feasibility and acceptability. Implementation science studies should assess the availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality of HIV PN services for AGYW. Qualitative studies and routine monitoring with age‐disaggregated data are critical to capture potential social harms, PN preferences and support needs for AGYW aged 15 to 17, 18 to 20 and 21 to 24. To mitigate potential harms, PN methods should prioritize confidentiality and avoidance of adverse outcomes. Healthcare providers should be trained to conduct routine enquiry for IPV and provide first‐line support. Support services for AGYW living with HIV and survivors of violence should be implemented alongside HIV PN.