Table 1 Summary of Studies Included in the Review

Alli F. et al. (2013) [28]

South Africa;

Upper middle income;

Youth friendly

university clinic

Cross-sectional study

1. In-depth interviews with managers and senior staff

2. Exit interviews with youth

200 youth aged 18–24 years

4 in-depth interviews with clinic managers and senior staff

1,2,5–8

Perception

Baumgartner et al. (2012) [37]

Kenya;

Low income;

HIV voluntary testing and counselling (VCT) youth friendly and non-youth friendly clinics

Repeated cross-sectional study

1. Baseline and 3 month follow-up client interviews

2. Baseline provider interviews structured observations of facilities

277 youth aged 15–24 years

46 providers

20 clinic observations

1–4, 6–8,12

Contraceptive use

Adapted from Brindis et al. (2005) [23], Mmari and Magnani (2003) [33], and UNAIDS 2000 indices for youth-friendliness

Brindis et al. (2005) [23]

USA;

High income;

10 Primary care facilities, SRH clinics and alternative settings

Pre-post evaluation study

1. Semi-structured interviews with administrator/provider

2. Questionnaire for administrators

3. Exit survey questionnaires for youth

Program administrator

Service providers

Youth clients

1–3, 7,8,11,12

Relationship of YFHS with service integration

Adapted from Philliber Research and Associates checklist for assessing teen friendliness of family planning services

Dickson et al. (2007) [24]

South Africa;

Upper middle income

National Adolescent Friendly Clinic Initiative (NAFCI)/LoveLife clinics and control clinics

Quasi-experimental case-control study

1. Interviews with clinic manager

2. Clinic document review

3. Inventory of clinic

4. Provider interviews

5. Non clinical support staff interviews

6. Client-provider observations

7. Client exit interviews

8. Key informant interviews

Adapted from NAFCI/LoveLife criteria

11 NAFCI clinics, 22 control clinics

1,2,5,7–12

Quality

Geary et al. (2014) [29]

South Africa;

Upper middle income;

8 Primary health clinics

Cross-sectional study

1. Semi-structured interviews

8 nurses

1, 7, 10, 11

Perception

Geary et al. (2015) [25]

South Africa;

Upper middle income;

15 health facilities

Cross-sectional study

1. Simulated clients debriefing questionnaires

50 visits by youth simulated clients

1–3,5,7,8,11,12

Perception and condom provision

Godia

et al. (2014) [30]

Kenya;

Low income;

9 facilities, youth center, district hospitals with integrative services

Cross-sectional study

1. Focus group discussions

2. In-depth interviews

18 focus group discussions

39 in-depth interviews of young people aged 10–24 years

1,2,5–11

Perception

Ingram and Salmon (2007) [26]

United Kingdom;

High income;

Drop-in primary care facility

Cross-sectional study

1. Questionnaires

2. interviews

122 young people aged 12–24 years

1, 5–8,11

Satisfaction

Adapted from London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Questionnaire for Service Users: Evaluation Kit

Kavanaugh et al. (2013) [12]

USA;

High income;

Publically funded family planning facilities

Cross-sectional study

1. Close-ended questionnaires

584 Facility or agency directors

1,4,6,9,12

Contraception provision

Adapted from Guttmacher family planning facilities tool

Larke et al. (2010) [35]

Tanzania;

Low income;

6 Health facilities

Simulated client clustered randomized control trial

1. Simulated client debriefing interviews

6 facility visits by youth mystery clients

4, 7,8,11

Quality and attendance, health seeking behavior, contraceptive distribution

Lesedi et al. (2011) [38]

Botswana;

Upper middle income;

2 youth friendly clinics

Cross-sectional quantitative

1. Questionnaires

110 youth aged 15–29 years

1–3,5–12

Perception

Adapted from Pathfinder Rapid Assessment of Youth Friendly Services (2003)

2. Mystery client interviews

Adapted from the African Youth Alliance Botswana interview guide (2005)

Mashamba and Robson (2002) [27]

Zimbabwe;

Low income;

Youth advisory center

Cross-sectional study

1. Exit questionnaires

2. Focus group discussions

30 youth aged 15–24 years

1,2,4–10

Perception

Mathews et al. (2009) [31]

South Africa;

Upper middle income;

12 NAFCI facilities and clinics

Cross-sectional study

1. Mystery client debrief questionnaires

137 youth mystery clients

6–8, 10

Compliance to quality criteria

Adapted from UNAIDS (2002) and Family Health International VCT Toolkit

Mauerhofer et al. (2010) [39]

Switzerland;

High income;

Multidisciplinary clinic

Cross-sectional study

1. Questionnaires

311 female return clients aged 12–20 years

1,2, 5–10

Satisfaction

Adapted from WHO framework and Sovd et al. (2006) [34] study

Mayeye et al. (2010) [40]

South Africa;

Upper middle income; 11 Primary health clinics

Cross sectional study

1. Exit questionnaires

200 youth aged 16–19 years

1,2,4–11

Satisfaction and perception

Adapted from International Planned Parenthood Federation Your Comments Count survey

Mchome et al. (2015) [36]

Tanzania;

Low income;

33 health facilities

Clustered randomized trial

1. Simulated client debriefings

2. interview checklist

48 visits by youth mystery clients

1,4,5,7,8,11

Quality

Mmari KN and Robert Magnani (2003) [33]

Zambia;

Lower middle income;

10 health clinics

Quasi-experimental case control

1. In-depth interviews with managers, nurses, and staff

2. Focus group discussions with youth

3. Exit interviews with youth

200 youth in focus groups

60 youth interviews

10 Managers

20 Staff

1,3,4,7

Quality

Adapted from the Pathfinder Focus on Young Adults Program

Perry and Thurston (2007) [41]

United Kingdom;

High income;

2 health facilities with youth only hours

Cross sectional study

1. Questionnaires

425 young people 10–18 years

1,2,4–8,10

Satisfaction

Sovd et al. (2006) [34]

Mongolia;

Lower middle income;

51 YFHS facilities and 31 Controls

Quasi-experimental case control study

1. Exit survey questionnaires

1301 adolescents aged 10–19

1,2,5–10

Satisfaction and quality

Adapted from collaboration with MOH, WHO and UNFPA

Tanner et al. (2014) [32]

USA;

High income;

15 clinics

Cross sectional study

1. Semi-structured interviews with staff

2. Photographs consistent and inconsistent with youth-friendliness

60 providers, outreach workers and case managers

3, 6–11

Perception

Adapted from WHO Adolescent Friendly Health Services Agenda for Change Framework (2002)