Table 1.
Frequency of well-being domains targeted in the included records by age group and approach
| Well-being domains1 | Children (1–12 years)2 (n = 12) |
Youth (13–18 years)3 (n = 27) |
Approach applied4 (n = 17) |
Approach suggested5 (n = 22) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Good health and optimum nutrition | 8 (66.7%) 6 | 19 (70.4%) | 12 (70.6%) | 15 (68.2%) |
| Physical health and capacities | 4 (50.0%)7 | 6 (31.6%) | 5 (41.7%) | 5 (33.3%) |
| Mental health and capacities | 6 (75.0%) | 18 (94.7%) | 10 (83.3%) | 14 (93.3%) |
| Optimal nutritional status and diet | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (5.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (6.7%) |
| 2) Connectedness | 3 (25.0%) | 18 (66.7%) | 7 (41.2%) | 14 (63.6%) |
| Connectedness | 3 (100.0%) | 15 (83.3%) | 5 (71.4%) | 13 (92.9%) |
| Valued and respected by others and accepted as part of the community | 1 (33.3%) | 4 (22.2%) | 1 (14.3%) | 4 (28.6) |
| Attitudes | 1 (33.3%) | 1 (5.6%) | 2 (28.6%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Interpersonal skills | 1 (33.3%) | 3 (16.7%) | 4 (57.1%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Activity | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (5.6%) | 1 (14.3%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Change and development | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (11.1%) | 2 (28.6%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| 3) Safety and a supportive environment | 2 (16.7%) | 9 (33.3%) | 2 (11.8%) | 9 (40.9%) |
| Safety | 1 (50.0%) | 5 (55.6%) | 1 (50.0%) | 5 (55.6%) |
| Material conditions in the physical environment are met | 1 (50.0%) | 2 (22.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (33.3%) |
| Equity | 1 (50.0%) | 3 (33.3%) | 1 (50.0%) | 3 (33.3%) |
| Equality | 1 (50.0%) | 3 (33.3%) | 1 (50.0%) | 3 (33.3%) |
| Non-discrimination | 1 (50.0%) | 3 (33.3%) | 2 (100.0%) | 2 (22.2%) |
| Privacy | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Responsive | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (22.2%) | 1 (50.0%) | 1 (11.1%) |
| 4) Learning, competence, education, skills, and employability | 5 (41.7%) | 13 (48.1%) | 10 (58.8%) | 8 (36.4%) |
| Learning | 1 (20.0%) | 6 (46.2%) | 1 (10.0%) | 6 (75.0%) |
| Education | 1 (20.0%) | 1 (7.7%) | 1 (10.0%) | 1 (12.5%) |
| Resources | 4 (80.0%) | 7 (53.8%) | 6 (60.0%) | 5 (62.5%) |
| Skills | 1 (20.0%) | 5 (38.5%) | 4 (40.0%) | 2 (25.0%) |
| Employability | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Confidence that they can do things well | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (7.7%) | 1 (10.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| 5) Agency and Resilience | 4 (33.3%) | 12 (44.4%) | 8 (47.1%) | 8 (36.4%) |
| Agency | 1 (25.0%) | 8 (66.7%) | 5 (62.5%) | 4 (50.0%) |
| Identity | 1 (25.0%) | 5 (41.7%) | 2 (25.0%) | 4 (50.0%) |
| Purpose | 1 (25.0%) | 5 (41.7%) | 4 (50.0%) | 2 (25.0%) |
| Resilience | 2 (50.0%) | 9 (75.0%) | 5 (62.5%) | 6 (75.0%) |
| Fulfillment | 2 (50.0%) | 3 (25.0%) | 2 (25.0%) | 3 (37.5%) |
1As described by Ross DA, Hinton R, Melles-Brewer M, et al. Adolescent well-being: a definition and conceptual framework. J Adolesc Health. 2020;67(4):472–476
2Includes ages that fall under 1–12 years of age. If age range included older ages, means younger than 12 were defined as children. If records did not report mean, median and IQR was used
3Includes ages that fall under 13–18 years of age. If age range included younger ages, means older and equal to 12 were defined as youth. If records did not report mean, median and IQR was used
4Approach suggested includes records that provided findings and/or recommendations that have the potential to inform a future approach to mitigate the deleterious impacts of the pandemic on children and youth well-being outcomes
5Approach applied includes records that implemented and reported on an approach to mitigate the deleterious impacts of the pandemic on children and youth well-being outcomes
6 Percentages demonstrate the total number of records that measured a well-being outcome divided by the total number of records. This is not a mutually exclusive value, for example records could have measured outcomes that fall under connectedness and agency and resilience
7 Percentages demonstrate the total number of records that measured a well-being subdomain divided by the total number of records related to their respective well-being domain. For example, the number of records related to the subdomain attitudes was divided by the total number of records related to connectedness. This is not a mutually exclusive value; record could have measured outcomes that fall under connectedness and attitudes