Modern methods of research and assessment of the physical development of children and adolescents
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2077-6594/2024.1/03Keywords:
adolescents, physical development, research methods, health, anthropometryAbstract
Purpose. To investigate modern methods of assessing physical development of children and adolescents, to conduct a theoretical analysis of the effectiveness of these methods. Materials and methods. Analysis of the effectiveness of modern methods of assessing the physical development of children and adolescents using scientific literature, online sources on relevant topics, articles in the online source PubMeb, articles of the scientific journal Scopus Results. In the modern world, where health and physical development are an integral part of a full life, the study and assessment of the physical condition of children and adolescents is becoming a particularly important and urgent task of modern medicine. The use of modern and high-tech methods in the field of physiology, medicine and physical rehabilitation is necessary to obtain accurate and complete information about the health and development of the younger generation. Conclusions. Research and evaluation of physical development of children and adolescents is an important area that requires the use of modern and scientifically sound methods. Sensors, mobile applications, and virtual reality technologies not only simplify the collection of objective data on physical activity and psychomotor parameters, but also expand research opportunities. The use of these approaches contributes not only to more effective control over the training process, but also affects psychomotor and physical development, helping to create optimal conditions for each child or adolescent.
References
Kromm SK, Bethell J, Kraglund F, Edwards SA, Laporte A, et al. Characteristics and quality of pediatric cost-utility analyses. Qual Life Res, 2018; 21(8): 1315–25.
Keren R, Pati S, Feudtner C. The generation gap: differences between children and adults pertinent to economic evaluations of health interventions. Pharmacoeconomics, 2014; 22(2): 71–81. pmid:14731049
Versteegh MM, Leunis A, Uyl-de Groot CA, Stolk EA. Condition-specific preference-based measures: benefit or burden? Value in Health, 2016; 15(3): 504–13. pmid:22583461.
Oluboyede Y, Tubeuf S, McCabe C. Measuring health outcomes of adolescents: report from a pilot study. The European Journal of Health Economics, 2018; 14(1): 1–9.
Goldstein MK, Clarke AE, Michelson D, Garber AM, Bergen MR, et al. Developing and testing a multimedia presentation of a health-state description. Medical Decision Making, 2014; 14(4): 336–44.
Ratcliffe J, Flynn T, Terlich F, Stevens K, Brazier J, et al. Developing adolescent-specific health state values for economic evaluation: an application of profile case best-worst scaling to the Child Health Utility 9D. Pharmacoeconomics, 2016; 30(8): 713–27.
Matza LS, Secnik K, Rentz AM, Mannix S, Sallee FR, et al. Assessment of health state utilities for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children using parent proxy report. Quality of Life Research, 2015; 14(3): 735–747.
Keating CL, Moodie M, Richardson J, Swinburn B. Utility-based quality of life of overweight and obese adolescents. Value in Health, 2021; 14(5): 752–758.
Ladapo JA, Neumann PJ, Keren R, Prosser LA. Valuing children’s health: a comparison of cost-utility analyses for adult and paediatric health interventions in the US. [Review] [24 refs]. Pharmacoeconomics, 2017; 25(10): 817–28.
Jee H. Review of researches on smartphone applications for physical activity promotion in healthy adults. J Exerc Rehabil, 2017; 13(1): 3–11.
Direito A, Jiang Y, Whittaker R, et al. Smartphone apps to improve fitness and increase physical activity among young people: protocol of the Apps for IMproving FITness (AIMFIT) randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health, 2015; 15: 635.
Jee H, Park J. Feasibility of a novice electronic psychometric assessment system for cognitively impaired. J Exerc Rehabil, 2020; 16(6): 489–495.
Poitras VJ, Gray CE, Borghese MM, et al. Systematic review of the relationships between objectively measured physical activity and health indicators in school-aged children and youth. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab, 2016; 41(6 Suppl 3): S197–239.
Bermejo-Cantarero A, Alvarez-Bueno C, Martinez-Vizcaino V, et al. Association between physical activity, sedentary behavior, and fitness with health related quality of life in healthy children and adolescents: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore), 2017; 96(12): e6407.
Lubans D, Richards J, Hillman C, et al. Physical Activity for Cognitive and Mental Health in Youth: A Systematic Review of Mechanisms. Pediatrics, 2016; 138.
Gibbs BB, Hergenroeder AL, Katzmarzyk PT, Lee IM, Jakicic JM. Definition, measurement, and health risks associated with sedentary behavior. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015; 47(6): 1295–1300.
Ravens-Sieberer U, Erhart M, Wille N, Wetzel R, Nickel J, et al. Generic health-related quality-of-life assessment in children and adolescents: methodological considerations. Pharmacoeconomics, 2016; 24(12): 1199–220.
Petrou S. Methodological issues raised by preference-based approaches to measuring the health status of children. Health Economics, 2018; 12: 697–702.
Keren R, Pati S, Feudtner C. The generation gap: differences between children and adults pertinent to economic evaluations of health interventions. Pharmacoeconomics,2004; 22(2): 71–81.
Eiser C, Morse R. Quality of life measure in chronic disease of childhood. Health Technology Assessment,2021; 5: 1–157.
Bonell C, Parry W, Wells H. The effects of the school environment on student health: a systematic review of multi-level studies. Health Place.; 2021; 21: 180–91.
Tomasik MJ, Pavlova MK, Lechner CM, Blumenthal A, Korner A. Changing contexts of youth development: An overview of recent social trends and a psychological model. New Dir Youth Dev. 2017; 135: 27–38.
Bell V, Bishop DV, Przybylski AK. The debate over digital technology and young people. BMJ; 351.
Johnson SB, Jones VC. Adolescent development and risk of injury: using developmental science to improve interventions. Inj Prev; 17: 50–54.
Collishaw S. Annual (2015) research review: secular trends in child and adolescent mental health. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 56: 370–93.
