Skip to main content

Assessing the youth-friendliness of youth clinics in northern Sweden: a survey analyzing the perspective of the youth

Abstract

Background

Sweden has nearly 300 youth clinics that have been offering services since the 1970s. However, no evaluation has been done to assess their youth-friendliness. This study aims to assess: i) to what extent youth clinics are perceived as youth-friendly by the young people using them; and ii) if the level of youth friendliness is equally perceived across different sociodemographic groups of users.

Methods

The four northernmost counties of Sweden were included in the study. Of the total identified 22 youth clinics, 20 participated by giving out questionnaires to the youth after their visits to the respective youth clinics. In total 1110 youth participated in the study and answered questions according to the World Health Organization’s criteria of accessibility, equity, respect, privacy and confidentiality, no judgement, and quality. Means and frequencies were calculated, and t-test and ANOVA were used to compare means by sociodemographic variables.

Results

Participants perceived the youth clinics as very youth friendly across the measured domains, with scores as high as 4.8 and 4.9 (of a maximum of 5). Youth clinics were perceived in a similar way regardless of gender, but other sociodemographic factors influenced some of the domains, especially ethnic background.

Conclusions

The perception of youth friendliness in youth clinics was very high. Nonetheless, younger users; users who did not categorize themselves as either heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual; users with trans-experiences; and users with non-Swedish backgrounds gave youth clinics lower scores for certain domains.

Peer Review reports

Background

Health care services can play an important role in the promotion of youth health; they can offer information and care to youth and promote healthy behaviour [1,2,3]. However, in order to play such a beneficial role, young people have to access such services and receive care that is judged to be of good quality and relevant for their needs; what the World Health Organization (WHO) conceptualizes as youth friendly health care services [3]. In order to be youth-friendly, services should fulfil the criteria of being accessible, acceptable, equitable, appropriate, and effective for different youth subpopulations [3, 4]. While WHO defines youth as those between 15 and 24 [5], the Youth Law (2004) of Sweden defines youth as those between 13 and 25 years.

While interventions to make services more youth-friendly have been implemented in many settings, few countries have truly integrated such an approach in a sustainable way within the health care system [2, 6, 7]. Head Space in Australia has implemented around 100 clinics, the Jigsaw clinics in Ireland account for 10 and Canada has around 12 of such services [8, 9], all of them with a special focus on integrating first line mental health care for young people. Sweden, on the other hand, has around 300 youth clinics (YCs) spread across the country and with more than 40 years of experience offering differentiated services for adolescents and youth [7, 10, 11]. While the target group of YCs is youth - according to the Swedish Youth Law definition- there are variations between YCs in terms of both lower and upper age limits [11]. According to the guidelines of The Swedish Society for Youth Centres (FSUM), and the perceptions of professionals working on YCs, they constitute an example of youth-friendly services [12]. Moreover their integration within the health system, while at the same time keeping a certain level of autonomy, makes them a good case for how youth-friendly services can be sustained within a broader health care system [11].

However, YCs are not without challenges. For example, it is well known that young women outnumber young men in YCs’ consultations, and professionals working in YCs point out that inequities might exist in terms of lack of access for certain groups of youth, such as LGBTQ and non-Swedish youths [11]. Also, the resources available differ geographically. YCs located in smaller places have fewer professionals and much shorter working hours, and many rural municipalities lack YCs [11, 13]. While YCs have always implemented a holistic youth-centred approach, the traditional focus has been on sexual and reproductive health. How to strengthen the role of YCs in other areas of health, especially mental health, is currently being discussed [13,14,15].

Despite the long history of YCs in Sweden, and even if there are internal reports stating that young people using the YCs are in general satisfied with the services provided [12], there is no published evaluation assessing to what extent YCs fulfil the domains of youth-friendliness, and whether these domains might vary for different youth subpopulations. Thus, this study had two objectives: i) to assess to what extent youth clinics were perceived as youth-friendly by the young people using them, and ii) if the level of youth-friendliness was equally perceived across different sociodemographic groups of users.

Methods

Study design and participants

This study was conducted in the four northernmost counties of Sweden, namely Jämtland-Härjedalen, Norrbotten, Västerbotten, and Västernorrland. Northern Sweden is a sparsely populated area; while accounting for 60% of Swedish land, it is home to only 12% of the population. Most people are clustered in the coastal regions whilst fewer people are situated inland. We focused on this region because it remains under-researched and its rurality better reflects the situation of other rural, scarcely populated areas in the European Union and beyond.

Of the 280 YCs in Sweden at the time of this study, 22 were located in northern Sweden and 20 participated in this study. Youth over the age of 16 who visited one of these 20 YCs were invited to fill in the YFHS-Swe questionnaire after the consultation. The questionnaire was completed in a quiet area at the YCs. The YFHS-Swe questionnaire assesses diverse domains of youth friendliness, based on the YFHS-WHO+ [4] and it has been validated for the Swedish context [16, 17].

In September 2016 the questionnaires were sent out to the YCs, and in March 2017 when the data collection ended, a total of 1110 young persons had responded. We excluded 113 responses due to the respondents’ being under age 16 or to their declining participation. Only five of the participating YCs kept track of how many youths declined to participate, and their response rate was between 70.3 and 90.9%. For the rest of the YCs, we could not state the response rate.

Measures

Youth friendliness

The YFHS-Swe questionnaire assesses six main domains, namely: accessibility, equity, respect, privacy and confidentiality, no judgement, and quality, of which three have subdomains. The questionnaire can be found in Baroudi et al.’s [16].

Accessibility includes the subdomains of (a) contact (access: contact), (b) sexual and reproductive health (access: sexual), and (c) psychosocial health (access: psychosocial); equity has the subdomains of (a) diversity (equity: diversity) and (b) legal status (equity: legal); and quality has the subdomains of (a) quality of consultation (quality: consultation) and (b) quality of the facility (quality: facility).

All 10 domains and subdomains analysed in this article were assessed using Likert-type scales ranging from 1 = least youth friendly to 5 = most youth friendly - the specific items within each question were assessed from 1 to 5, being 1 = never present in the clinic to 5 = always present in the clinic. Table 1 shows a short description of the 10 subdomains contained in the YFHS-Swe questionnaire.

Table 1 Youth-friendliness subdomains assessed in the YFHS-Swe questionnaire (modified from [16])

Demographic factors

Gender was coded as women, men, and other (intergender, non-binary, and other). Trans-experience was dichotomized into yes and no. Sexual orientation included heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and other (queer, asexual, I don’t categorize myself sexually, I don’t know, and other). Place of birth was coded as being born in Sweden or outside the country and parents place of birth was classified as both parents born in Sweden, both born in Europe (but not in Sweden), or at least one of them born outside Europe.

Analysis

To examine the participants’ perception of the YCs’ friendliness, different scores for each of the domains and the sum of all were created. For each domain, means were obtained by summing up the Likert responses and dividing the results by the number of items in each respective domain. The mean of all of the 10 factor scores was calculated and labelled “Friendliness.” Only full cases were analysed, and the response option “I don’t know” was excluded. To achieve the second objective, an analysis of variance was performed to assess whether the sociodemographic variables were associated with the mean of the 10 domains. A Bonferroni post-hoc test was also conducted to examine differences between the groups of variables. All analyses were performed in Stata 15.

Results

Young people responding to the questionnaire were mostly young women (90.7%), heterosexual (84.4%), not reporting trans-experiences (98.60%), born in Sweden (93.99%), and with both parents born in Sweden (92.59%). Around one third of participants belonged to each of the different age groups (Table 2). Almost 15% were visiting the clinic for the first time.

Table 2 Characteristics of the participants

Figure 1 shows that mean scores of youth-friendliness were overall very high. All domains rated above 4. Access: contact had the lowest score (4.1) and non-judgment had the highest (4.9).

Fig. 1
figure1

Mean scores ranging from 1 to 5 for the 10 subdomains of youth friendliness (effective n = 601–976)

Table 3 shows each domain’s mean scores according to the participants’ sociodemographic characteristics. No differences were found among most of the variables and the different domains. However, those above 19-years old were more satisfied with access: contact, no judgment, and respect than were the younger groups. Those categorized in the group ‘other’ regarding their sexual orientation gave lower scores in access: sexual and respect than those who identified themselves as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. Those reporting trans-experiences reported a lower satisfaction with access: sexual, but higher with access: contact.

Table 3 Mean scores (and standard deviations, sd) in 10 subdomains of youth friendliness and its association with sociodemographic variables. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to calculate the statistical inferences

Youth born outside Sweden reported less satisfaction with access: sexual, equity: diversity, and privacy and confidentiality. In addition to the last two, no judgment, respect, quality: consultation and quality: facility scored lower when at least one of the parents was born outside Europe.

Discussion

To the extent of our knowledge this is the first study to assess Swedish YCs’ degree of youth-friendliness from the perspective of young people using these services. The participants perceived the YCs as very youth friendly across the measured domains. YCs were perceived in a similar way regardless of the respondents’ gender, but other sociodemographic factors influenced some of the domains.

The YCs were overall assessed very positively by the young people answering the questionnaire. This is an important finding that allows us to label northern Swedish YCs as a good example of youth-friendly services. There are, to the best of our knowledge, no similar studies in other countries to compare with so far. However, during the validation of the YFHS+ questionnaire with primary health care centres in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the scores were considerably lower there [4]. Results from our study confirm previous unpublished evaluations from FSUM and findings from qualitative studies that stress that the “special” youth-centred approach of YCs and the motivation of the staff working on these services make them accessible, acceptable, and appropriate for young people [11, 12]. Since there are few examples of existing and sustained youth-friendly services in Europe [18, 19], the lessons learnt from the Swedish YC model can inspire efforts in other countries.

In terms of differences based on the sociodemographic characteristics of youths, it is interesting to highlight that there were no significant differences based on gender. Studies, and routine data from YCs’ consultations (and even the composition of our sample) highlight that girls and young women outnumber boys and young men in consultations in YCs [20]. This is a pattern not only for Swedish YCs, but for youth-friendly health care services in general. This study, however, also points out an interesting finding: when it comes to those youths actually attending YCs, boys and young men (and also those who do not categorize themselves in gender binary ways) perceive all domains of YCs as high as do girls and young women.

In relation to girls and young women it is also important to note that they rate YCs high in the different domains of youth friendliness. It is known that teenage girls and young women take high responsibility for sexual health and contraceptives in partner relationships [21]. In addition, young women are overrepresented in sick-leave and self-reported health problems (e.g. mental health problems), as well as in exposure to gender-based and sexualised harassment and violence [22, 23], which is why youth-friendly strategies for continuous, early health promotion are important to develop for these groups.

Sexual orientation was one aspect that influenced how young people perceived YCs. The literature shows that LGBTQ youth face barriers to accessing health care services [24,25,26,27]. However, most studies take together as a group all non-heterosexual youths. In our study, there were no significant differences between heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual youths, while queer, asexual and non-sexual youth as well as youth with trans experiences rated YCs’ differently—and generally lower. This could reflect the fact that while training, LGBTQ certifications, and other efforts might have had an impact in how health care services for youth address sexual diversity, youth with less normative sexualities (beyond the heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual categorizations) still face increased barriers for accessing services.

The young people’s, and especially their parents’, country of birth were the variables that were most strongly associated with YCs’ lower rating in the different domains. The literature shows that migrants might face more barriers to accessing health care services, based on individual characteristics -e.g. socioeconimc status, language and information barriers -and, especially based on factors at the health-system level -e.g, policies that restrict access, and health care professionals’ attitudes, such as discrimination and racism [28,29,30,31]. Despite equity being in the core of the YCs’ mandate, previous studies have highlighted that YCs’ staff perceive that non-Swedish young people access YCs to a lesser extent [11]. This study goes further, pointing out that for those young people with a non-Swedish background who actually reach YCs, their perceptions of the services are also a bit poorer.

Equity is a domain of youth-friendliness that other studies show as being among the most difficult to fulfil [2, 6, 11]. While previous population-based studies have already pointed out that there are socioeconomic inequities in accessing YCs in Sweden [32], and YC staff’s perceptions support the hypothesis that certain sub-groups of young people access YCs much less [11, 12, 32], this study reveals that sexual orientation and especially ethnic background are markers of inequities when it comes to YCs’ youth-friendliness.

According to the new proposed model by WHO, it is not only a matter that specific, differentiated services should be friendly towards young people, but that the entire health system should embrace such an approach [33]. It would be interesting to apply the YFHS-Swe questionnaire to other health care services that also assist young people in Sweden (primary health care services, youth psychiatry, school health) in order to assess whether they are equally youth friendly.

Finally, it is important to highlight that the sample does not represent the overall young population in Sweden (women, heterosexual, born in Sweden youth are overrepresented). We hypothesize that this, more than being a bias in the selection of the participants, is a reflection of who access youth clinics, and who does not. Special attention should therefore be given to implement strategies to improve access to certain subgroups of young people who might be in more need but accessing clinics less. There are a number of strategies in place when it comes to improving access to certain subgroups of youth, i.e. LGBTQ certification of clinics, visits of students when they are in 9th grade (15–16 years), tailored information and specific drop-in hours addressing those identifying themselves as boys/young men, and certain clinics collaborate with organizations working with unaccompanied youth. However, we claim that more measures need to be taken, including better promotion of the existence and services provided in YCs for all young people, especially for rural youth and those who have moved to Sweden recently and might not be familiar with the services. Crucial is also to remove any barriers related to payment (i.e. for young people who have not been granted legal residence). To date, there are some promising initiatives to overcome barriers and improve access such as the possibility to receive support via digital technologies (i.e. psychologist), including a web-based youth health clinic which is partly translated to additional languages (www.youmo.se).

Methodological considerations

The distribution of the questionnaires within the YCs might have differed and youth who were perceived to be less satisfied or who were not fluent in Swedish might have been excluded. Internal missing was evident in most questions. This study was only able to capture the visiting youths’ perceptions, and not other youths’ perceptions. Moreover, we were not able to gather information on how many young people declined to answer the survey and their sociodemographic characteristics.

Conclusions

For all the youths participating in the study, the perception of youth friendliness in YCs was very high, scoring almost the maximum for access: sexual, equity: diversity, privacy and confidentiality, no judgement, respect, and quality: consultation. YCs received lower scores in certain domains from younger users; from those who did not categorize themselves as either heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual; from those with trans-experiences; and from those with non-Swedish backgrounds.

The use of the WHO criteria and the YFHS-Swe questionnaire is a good, promising way to scrutinize additional services that meet youth in their daily practices (such as primary care, psychiatry, school health services, paediatric clinics, pain rehabilitation clinics, stress clinic, dental care, etc.).

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

FSUM:

Föreningen för Sveriges Ungdomsmottagningar (Swedish Association of Youth Clinics)

LGBTQ:

Lesbian Gay Bisexual Trans Queer

WHO:

World Health Organization

YC:

Youth Clinic

YFHS-Swe:

Youth Friendly Health Services Sweden

YFHS+:

Youth Friendly Health Services Plus

References

  1. 1.

    Chandra-Mouli V, Chatterjee S, Bose K. Do efforts to standardize, assess and improve the quality of health service provision to adolescents by government-run health services in low and middle income countries, lead to improvements in service-quality and service-utilization by adolescents? Reprod Health. 2015;13(1):10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Tylee A, Haller DM, Graham T, Churchill R, Sanci LA. Youth-friendly primary-care services: how are we doing and what more needs to be done? Lancet. 2007;369(9572):1565–73.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    World Health Organization. Making health services adolescent friendly: Developing national quality standards for adolescent friendly health services. Geneva: Report, World Health Organization; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Haller DM, Meynard A, Pejic D, et al. YFHS-WHO+ questionnaire: validation of a measure of youth-friendly primary care services. J Adolesc Health. 2012;51(5):422–30.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Sundby J. Young people’s sexual and reproductive health rights. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2006;20(3):355–368.

  6. 6.

    Ambresin A-E, Bennett K, Patton GC, et al. Assessment of youth-friendly health care: a systematic review of indicators drawn from young people's perspectives. J Adolesc Health. 2013;52(6):670–81.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Baltag V, Mathieson A. Youth-friendly health policies and services in the European region: sharing experiences. Geneva: Report, World Health Organization; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Malla A, Iyer S, McGorry P, Cannon M, Coughlan H, Singh S, et al. From early intervention in psychosis to youth mental health reform: a review of the evolution and transformation of mental health services for young people. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2016;51(3):319–26.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Hetrick SE, Bailey AP, Smith KE, Malla A, Mathias S, Singh SP, et al. Integrated (one-stop shop) youth health care: best available evidence and future directions. Med J Aust. 2017;207(10):S5–s18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Swedish Society for Youth Centres (FSUM). Riktlinjer för Sveriges ungdomsmottagningar [Guidelines for Swedish Youth Clinics], 2015. http://www.fsum.nu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/guidelines_1.pdf (Accessed 16 May 2019).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Thomée S, Malm D, Christianson M, et al. Challenges and strategies for sustaining youth-friendly health services—a qualitative study from the perspective of professionals at youth clinics in northern Sweden. Reprod Health. 2016;13(1):147.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Swedish Society for Youth Centres (FSUM). ‘Ni är grymma’ (‘Keep up the good work’), 2015. www.fsum.org/fsum/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/statistik.pdf (Accessed 26 Sept 2018).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Goicolea I, Ahlin CH, Waenerlund A-K, et al. Accessibility and factors associated with utilization of mental health services in youth health centers. A qualitative comparative analysis in northern Sweden. Int J Mental Health Syst. 2018;12(1):69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Swedish Society for Youth Centres (FSUM). Ungdomsmottagningen i första linjen för psykisk (o)hälsa [The youth clinics in first line mental health]. Stockholm: Report, FSUM; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Uppdrag Psykisk Hälsa. Psykisk hälsa på ungdomsmottagningen- en kartläggning av Sveriges ungdomsmottagningar [Mental health in youth clinics – a mapping of Swedish youth clinics]. Stockholm: Uppdrag Psykisk Hälsa; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Baroudi M, Waenerlund AK, San Sebastian M, et al. Assessing the dimensionality of YFHS-Swe: a questionnaire to assess youth-friendliness in differentiated health services. Glob Health Action. 2017;10(1):1380399.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Malm D, Bishop L, Gustafsson P, et al. Validation of a questionnaire to measure youth-friendliness of Swedish youth clinics. Scand J Public Health. 2017;45(4):366–72.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Kempers J, Ketting E, Chandra-Mouli V, et al. The success factors of scaling-up Estonian sexual and reproductive health youth clinic network-from a grassroots initiative to a national programme 1991–2013. Reprod Health. 2015;12(1):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kempers J, Ketting E, Lesco G. Cost analysis and exploratory cost-effectiveness of youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health services in the Republic of Moldova. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):316.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Abrahamsson K, Sundin C. Where have all the young men gone? En problematisering av den låga andelen unga män bland ungdomsmottagningens besökare, 2008. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/18254 (Accessed 19 May 2019).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Wigginton B, Harris ML, Loxton D, et al. Who takes responsibility for contraception, according to young Australian women? Sex Reprod Healthc. 2018;15:2–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Wiklund M, Malmgren-Olsson E-B, Bengs C, et al. “He messed me up”: Swedish adolescent girls’ experiences of gender-related partner violence and its consequences over time. Violence Against Women. 2010;16(2):207–32.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Wiklund M, Bengs C, Malmgren-Olsson E-B, et al. Young women facing multiple and intersecting stressors of modernity, gender orders and youth. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(9):1567–75.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Acevedo-Polakovich ID, Bell B, Gamache P, et al. Service accessibility for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth. Youth Soc. 2013;45(1):75–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Hoffman ND, Freeman K, Swann S. Healthcare preferences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth. J Adolesc Health. 2009;45(3):222–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Knight R, Shoveller J, Carson A, et al. Examining clinicians’ experiences providing sexual health services for LGBTQ youth: considering social and structural determinants of health in clinical practice. Health Educ Res. 2014;29(4):662–70.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Lindroth M, Zeluf G, Mannheimer LN, et al. Sexual health among transgender people in Sweden. Int J Transgen. 2017;18(3):318–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Kalengayi FKN, Hurtig A-K, Ahlm C, Ahlberg BM. “It is a challenge to do it the right way”: an interpretive description of caregivers’ experiences in caring for migrant patients in Northern Sweden. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(1):433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Mladovsky P. A framework for analysing migrant health policies in Europe. Health Policy. 2009;93(1):55–63.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Padilla B, Miguel JP. Health and migration in the European Union: Building a shared vision for action. Health and migration in the European Union: better health for all in an Inclusive Society. 2009(1ª):15–22.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    European Union. Agency for Fundamental Rights. Inequalities and multiple discrimination in access to and quality of healthcare. Viena: Report, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights; 2013.

  32. 32.

    Mosquera PA, Waenerlund A-K, Goicolea I, et al. Equitable health services for the young? A decomposition of income-related inequalities in young adults’ utilization of health care in northern Sweden. Int J Equity Health. 2017;16(1):20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    World Health Organization. Health for the world’s adolescents: a second chance in the second decade: summary. 2014. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/112750 (Accessed 16 May 2019).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge all the managers, professionals and young people at youth clinics who administered and fill in the questionnaire.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by FORTE, the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Living Conditions through a competitive call (registration number 2014–0235). Open access funding provided by Umea University.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

AKW coordinated the data collection and lead the analysis, together with IG and MS. AKW developed the first draft of the manuscript and together with IG gathered the comments from all team members in order to revise successive drafts and develop and submit the final draft of the manuscript to the journal. MS, MC, MW, AKH all contributed with ideas, and were involved in discussing the findings. They all read and critically commented and revised the successive drafts of the manuscript and approved the final version before submission to the journal.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isabel Goicolea.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The ethical approval to apply the questionnaire was granted in August 2015 by the Regional Ethical Review Board Umeå (Drn:2015–190-31Ö). Written informed consent was obtained from each participant. All participants were 16 years old or older, which in Sweden is considered an age were young people can consent to participate in research without the need for consent from legal guardians.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Waenerlund, A., San Sebastian, M., Hurtig, A. et al. Assessing the youth-friendliness of youth clinics in northern Sweden: a survey analyzing the perspective of the youth. BMC Health Serv Res 20, 346 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05188-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Youth clinic
  • Sweden
  • Youth friendly
  • Health services
  • Health service accessibility
  • Youth
  • Questionnaire