Search

This study analyzes the previous literature on the online safety of children and youth under "the 4Cs risk framework" concerning contact, content, conduct, and contract risks. It then conducts a comparative study of Australia, Canada, and the UK, comparing their institutions, governance, and government-led programs. Relevant research in Childhood Education Studies is insufficient both in quantity and quality. To minimize the four major online risks for children and youth in cyberspace, it is necessary to maintain a regulatory approach to the online exposure of children under the age of 13. Moreover, the global society should respond together to these online risks with "multi-level" policymaking under a "multi-stakeholder approach". At the international level, multilateral discussion within the OECD and under UN subsidiaries should continue to lead international cooperation. At the domestic level, a special agency in charge of online safety for children and youth should be established in each country, encompassing all relevant stakeholders, including educators and digital firms. At the school and family levels, both parents and teachers need to work together in facilitating digital literacy education, providing proper guidelines for the online activities of children and youth, and helping them to become more satisfied and productive users in the digital era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary healthcare services have principal responsibility for providing child and youth wellbeing and mental health services, but have lacked appropriate measurement instruments to assess the wellbeing of Indigenous children and youth or to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and services designed to meet their needs. This review assesses the availability and characteristics of measurement instruments that have been applied in primary healthcare services in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States (CANZUS countries) to assess the wellbeing of Indigenous children and youth. Methods: Fifteen databases and 12 websites were searched in December 2017 and again in October 2021. Pre-defined search terms pertained to Indigenous children and youth, CANZUS country names, and wellbeing or mental health measures. PRISMA guidelines were followed, with eligibility criteria guiding screening of titles and abstracts, and selected full-text papers. Results are presented based on the characteristics of documented measurement instruments assessed according to five desirability criteria: development for Indigenous youth populations, adherence to relational strength-based constructs, administration by child and or youth self-report, reliability and validity, and usefulness for identifying wellbeing or risk levels. Results: Twenty-one publications were found that described the development and or use by primary healthcare services of 14 measurement instruments, employed across 30 applications. Four of the 14 measurement instruments were developed specifically for Indigenous youth populations, four focused solely on strength-based wellbeing concepts but none included all Indigenous wellbeing domains. Conclusion: There is a diversity of measurement instruments available, but few fit our desirability criteria. Although it is possible that we missed relevant papers and reports, this review clearly supports the need for further research to develop, refine or adapt instruments cross-culturally to measure the wellbeing of Indigenous children and youth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]