3.2 Research ONE health-related issue for young people

When you are researching a health-related issue relevant to young Australians, it’s essential to approach the task systematically and thoughtfully. The following guidelines will help you conduct thorough and meaningful research, ensuring your findings are relevant, accurate, and useful.

1. Choose a health issue to research

2. What is the nature of the issue?

The nature of the issue sets the foundation for everything that follows. It explains exactly what the issue is, who is most affected, how it appears in real life, and whether it is short-term, long-term, emerging, stable, worsening, or improving.

A precise description usually identifies: the key behaviour or condition, the settings where it occurs (school, home, sport, online spaces, community environments), and the groups most exposed to risk (for example, differences linked to age, gender, socioeconomic conditions, geographic location, or cultural background). Where relevant, it also separates concepts that are often confused, such as occasional risk-taking versus sustained harmful patterns, or normal developmental experiences versus clinically significant problems.

Example: “Technology use is a big issue” is too broad and too vague. It becomes clearer when narrowed to “excessive social media use among Year 10 to 12 students, particularly scrolling late at night, and its relationship with sleep quality and school concentration”.

3. What does the data tell us?

Research is strengthened when claims are grounded in data rather than opinion. Data helps show what is happening, for whom, and whether the issue is changing over time. The most useful evidence identifies trends, compares groups, and reveals patterns linked to determinants of health and access to support.

Common Australian sources include national datasets and reports from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), youth-focused surveys (for example, headspace and the Mission Australia Youth Survey), and state or local health department reports. Peer-reviewed research and reputable evaluation reports can also be useful, particularly when explaining why an issue occurs or which strategies have evidence of effectiveness.

3.1 Patterns and trends over time

Trends show whether the issue is worsening, improving, or stable. Strong interpretation describes the direction of change, the size of the change, and the time period. Where explanations are proposed, they remain tied to evidence rather than assumptions.

Example: A strong trend statement explains change and meaning: “Rates of a given risk behaviour have increased over several reporting periods, indicating that prevention strategies may not be reaching the intended group effectively, or that new influences have emerged that current approaches do not address.”

3.2 Differences between groups

Data should be examined for differences between groups, such as variation by age, sex, cultural background, geographic location (urban, rural, remote), and socioeconomic conditions. Group differences matter because strategies that work for one group may not fit another, and inequities are often hidden when data is averaged across all young people.

Interpretation should explain what differences imply for prevention and service delivery. For example, a gap by location may point to access barriers, while a gap by sex may suggest different social pressures, exposure risks, or help-seeking patterns.

Example: If a risk pattern is higher in rural or remote areas, an evidence-based explanation may include distance to services, workforce shortages, limited confidentiality in small communities, and reduced availability of structured recreation options.

3.3 Using visual aids well

Graphs, tables, and infographics can reduce cognitive load by making patterns easier to see, but they still require clear explanation. Strong writing links what is shown in a figure to the conclusion being made, such as a rise over time or a consistent gap between groups.

Example: A figure may show an increase in the proportion of 15 to 18 year olds reporting a behaviour across several years, which supports a conclusion about rising demand for prevention, early intervention, or service access.

3.4 Source quality, currency, and fair interpretation

Research quality depends on how trustworthy the data is and how carefully it is interpreted. Credible sources are transparent about who was surveyed, how information was collected, sample size, and limitations. Newer data is generally preferred, but high-quality older studies can still be useful when they explain mechanisms or evaluate strategies.

Misinterpretation often occurs when correlation is treated as causation, when small sample findings are generalised, or when headline statistics are used without context. Strong research uses more than one source where possible and explains what the data can and cannot show.

Example: If screen time and anxiety are linked in a survey, this does not automatically prove screen time causes anxiety. Strong research explains other contributing factors such as stress, sleep loss, social pressures, existing mental health conditions, and family routines.

4. Why is this an issue?

This section explains why the topic matters as a health issue for young people. Strong justification links the issue to multiple dimensions of health and to life outcomes, rather than treating health as only physical. It also explains why adolescence and young adulthood can increase vulnerability, including developmental change, increasing independence, and stronger peer influence.

4.1 Impacts across health dimensions

Health issues rarely affect only one area. Impacts often accumulate and interact across settings such as school, home, sport, work, and online environments. A strong explanation shows how one issue can produce a chain of effects across multiple areas. Common impact areas include physical health, mental and emotional wellbeing, relationships and social interaction, and school engagement and future pathways.

Example: Sleep deprivation can reduce attention and memory during lessons, increase irritability and conflict, and contribute to lower assessment performance, which then increases stress and reinforces the sleep problem.

4.2 Why young people can be more vulnerable

Adolescence is a period of rapid brain development, identity formation, and heightened sensitivity to peer influence. Many risk behaviours first appear or become established during this stage, and early patterns can become long-term habits if prevention and early intervention are weak. Young people may also face barriers to support, particularly when stigma, confidentiality concerns, cost, or limited service availability are present.

4.3 Determinants of health shaping risk and behaviour

Understanding determinants of health strengthens research because it explains why patterns exist and why some groups experience higher risk. Determinants include socioeconomic conditions, education, access to services, social support, culture, environment, and media and technology influences.

Determinants often interact. When underlying drivers include affordability, access, peer norms, and stress, strategies limited to information alone are unlikely to shift behaviour, particularly for high-need groups.

Example: A young person working late shifts to support family income may experience ongoing fatigue and stress, increasing reliance on energy drinks, reducing recovery from training, and raising the likelihood of low moods.

5. What are the protective factors to prevent or reduce the issue?

Protective factors reduce the likelihood that an issue will occur or lessen its severity when it does. Strong research explains how a protective factor operates, not just that it exists. Protective factors can exist at multiple levels, including individual, family, peer, school, community, and system levels.

Common protective factors include health literacy, self-regulation and coping skills, help-seeking confidence, supportive relationships, positive peer norms, safe school environments, trusted adults, accessible youth services, and structured opportunities for participation (sport, cultural groups, youth programmes).

This section is stronger when protective factors are linked to determinants of health, because protective environments are not equally available. When protective factors are unevenly distributed due to cost, transport, cultural safety, or service access, inequities can widen.

Example: A teenager with strong family communication and supportive boundaries may be less likely to engage in harmful substance use because they have supervision, advice, and emotional support during high-pressure social situations.

6. What strategies are currently in place to improve the health of young people?

This section identifies what currently exists to address the issue and evaluates how well these strategies match the pattern of need shown in the evidence. Strategies may include curriculum-based education, school wellbeing systems, youth health services, digital supports, community programs, public health campaigns, and legislation or policy settings that shape access and behaviour.

A strong description identifies who runs the strategy, who it targets, what it aims to change, and the mechanism it uses to create change, such as building knowledge and skills, early identification, treatment access, environmental change, or reducing barriers to support.

Examples of strategies include school-based education and wellbeing systems, youth support services (such as headspace, Kids Helpline, and Beyond Blue), public health campaigns, community outreach and peer-support initiatives, and relevant legal or policy settings.

6.1 Evaluating current strategies

Listing strategies is not enough. Evaluation considers whether a strategy can realistically reach the young people most affected and whether it addresses key drivers of the issue. Useful evaluation criteria include accessibility, reach, suitability for higher-risk groups, cultural safety and relevance, and evidence of impact.

A strategy can only be effective if young people can use it. Accessibility includes cost, location, transport, opening hours, wait times, confidentiality, disability access, and digital access. Reach also includes whether a strategy is visible and trusted by young people who avoid services due to stigma or fear of judgement.

Example: An online counselling service may improve access for students in remote areas, but only if privacy, internet reliability, and awareness are addressed.

Some strategies work well for the general population but miss young people at higher risk, including those experiencing disadvantage, trauma, unstable housing, or exclusion from school. Effective evaluation considers whether strategies are universal, targeted, or combined, and whether intensity matches level of need.

Strategies are stronger when they are youth-centred, culturally safe, and designed with community input. Cultural safety includes respectful communication, appropriate service models, and recognition of different experiences of health, family, and identity, particularly for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people and culturally and linguistically diverse communities.

Example: A school program may improve awareness, but be limited if it is delivered once per year with no follow-up support, no clear referral pathway, and little tailoring for students facing complex barriers.

7. What new strategies would be most effective to improve young people’s health?

New strategies are justified when current approaches leave gaps, create barriers, or fail to reach those most affected. Strong proposals are specific, practical, and evidence-informed. They explain what will change, why it is likely to work better, who it targets, and how effectiveness could be judged (for example, changes in access, uptake, behaviour, or outcomes relevant to the issue).

Effective proposals often combine approaches rather than relying on a single solution. Improved outcomes commonly require prevention, early intervention, and treatment access working together. New strategies are strongest when aligned to determinants of health. If underlying drivers include cost, access barriers, peer norms, workload stress, or stigma, then strategies limited to information alone are unlikely to be sufficient.

Common directions for improved strategies include digital supports that increase confidentiality and access, school-based peer mentor models when peer influence is a key driver, locally-run community workshops that connect directly to ongoing supports, culturally safe service models co-designed with communities, and integrated approaches that address both physical and mental health influences when the issue involves both wellbeing and lifestyle patterns.

Example: A targeted strategy may focus on “Year 11 students reporting frequent late-night phone use”, aiming to improve sleep routines through confidential support and practical habit change tools (e.g. settings that lock apps), with the intended impact of improved daytime functioning, mood stability, and learning engagement.

8. What further research questions could be explored to build understanding and advocacy?

Further research strengthens understanding by identifying what is unclear, where evidence is mixed, or where subgroup differences are not well explained. Useful further directions often focus on gaps in access, the effectiveness of particular delivery models, and the conditions that increase or reduce uptake among higher-need groups.

Further research commonly investigates areas such as the influence of social media exposure and online interaction, which approaches are most effective for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people and why, how families and peers can be more effectively involved, and how technology could improve access, confidentiality, and engagement. Strong research directions are specific enough to lead to actionable findings, rather than producing general conclusions.

Research supports advocacy when it clarifies need, highlights inequities, demonstrates service gaps, and identifies which changes are most likely to improve outcomes. Advocacy may focus on improved school processes, better resourcing, stronger referral pathways, targeted programmes, policy change, or service access reform, depending on what the evidence shows.

Example: If evidence suggests an existing program is available but underused, further research can examine barriers to uptake such as confidentiality concerns, low awareness, cultural safety issues, stigma, transport barriers, or long wait times, strengthening advocacy for practical changes that remove those barriers.