Children born prematurely (<37 weeks’ gestation) have an increased risk for chronic health problems and developmental challenges compared to their term-born peers. The threats to health and development posed by prematurity, the unintended effects of life-sustaining neonatal intensive care, the associated neonatal morbidities, and the profound stressors to families affect well-being during infancy, childhood, adolescence, and beyond. Specialized clinical programs provide medical and developmental follow-up care for preterm infants after hospital discharge. High-risk infant follow-up, like most post-discharge health services, has many shortcomings, including unclear goals, inadequate support for infants, parents, and families, fragmented service provisions, poor coordination among providers, and an artificially foreshortened time horizon. There are well-documented inequities in care access and delivery. We propose applying a life course health development framework to clinical follow-up for children born prematurely that is contextually appropriate, developmentally responsive, and equitably deployed. The concepts of health development, unfolding, complexity, timing, plasticity, thriving, and harmony can be mapped to key components of follow-up care delivery to address pressing health challenges. This new approach envisions a more effective version of clinical follow-up to support the best possible functional outcomes and the opportunity for every premature infant to thrive within their family and community environments over their life course.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an initial list of characteristics of life course interventions to inform the emerging discipline of life course intervention research.METHODS: The Life Course Intervention Research Network, a collaborative national network of >75 researchers, service providers, community representatives, and thought leaders, considered the principles, characteristics, and utility of life course interventions. After an in-person launch meeting in 2019, the steering committee collaboratively and iteratively developed a list of life course intervention characteristics, incorporating a modified Delphi review process.RESULTS: The Life Course Intervention Research Network identified 12 characteristics of life course interventions. These interventions (1) are aimed at optimizing health trajectories; (2) are developmentally focused, (3) longitudinally focused, and (4) strategically timed; and are (5) designed to address multiple levels of the ecosystem where children are born, live, learn, and grow and (6) vertically, horizontally, and longitudinally integrated to produce a seamless, forward-leaning, health optimizing system. Interventions are designed to (7) support emerging health development capabilities; are (8) collaboratively codesigned by transdisciplinary research teams, including stakeholders; and incorporate (9) family-centered, (10) strengths-based, and (11) antiracist approaches with (12) a focus on health equity.CONCLUSIONS: The intention for this list of characteristics of life course interventions is to provide a starting point for wider discussion and to guide research development. Incorporation of these characteristics into intervention designs may improve emerging health trajectories and move critical developmental processes and pathways back on track, even optimizing them to prevent or reduce adverse outcomes.

Historically, research examining health status disparities between members in different socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic groups often focused on adults and the concurrent lifestyle factors that might explain health differentials. Recent years have witnessed an explosion of interest in the developmental origins of adult health and disease, and life course-oriented research has proliferated across the social, biological, and health sciences. This chapter describes how an integrated life course health development framework can be applied to advance our understanding of the dynamic and multilevel processes contributing to health disparities across lifetimes and even generations. Examples of recent research that has examined health status disparities from a life course perspective are provided, and research gaps and challenges are reviewed. The chapter concludes with a set of recommendations for a more strategic and responsive life course-informed research agenda that not only can fill in gaps in current knowledge, but also pave the way for the translation of this knowledge into improvement in practice, programs, and policy aimed at alleviating health disparities.

OBJECTIVES: To report on first steps toward building a Life Course Intervention Research Framework (LCIRF) to guide researchers studying interventions to improve lifelong health. METHODS: The Life Course Intervention Research Network, a collaborative national network of >75 researchers, service providers, community representatives and thought leaders, participated in an iterative review process. Building on the revised Medical Research Council Guidance for Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions, they identified 12 additional key models with features for inclusion in the LCIRF, then incorporated the 12 characteristics identified by the Life Course Intervention Research Network as actionable features of Life Course Interventions to produce the new LCIRF. RESULTS: The LCIRF sets out a detailed step-wise approach to intervention development: (1) conceptualization and planning, (2) design, (3) implementation, (4) evaluation, and (5) spreading and scaling of interventions. Each step is infused with life course intervention characteristics including a focus on (1) collaborative codesign (2) health optimization, (3) supporting emerging health development capabilities (4) strategic timing, (5) multilevel approaches, and (6) health equity. Key features include a detailed transdisciplinary knowledge synthesis to inform intervention development; formation of strong partnerships with family, community, and youth representatives in intervention codesign; a means of testing the impact of each intervention on biobehavioral processes underlying emerging health trajectories; and close attention to intervention context. CONCLUSIONS: This first iteration of the LCIRF has been largely expert driven. Next steps will involve widespread partner engagement in framework refinement and further development. Implementation will require changes to the way intervention studies are organized and funded.

Context: In recent years, stakeholders in public health have emphasized measuring young peoples' well-being as a more holistic and upstream approach to understanding their health and development. However, summarizing the available indicators of well-being in ways that strengthen ongoing policy and community efforts remains a challenge. Program: Our objective was to develop a measurement framework of young peoples' well-being that would be engaging and actionable to a broad and diverse set of stakeholders in California. Implementation: We began with a scan of the relevant literature documenting previous efforts to measure young peoples' well-being, both within the United States and internationally. Subsequently, we individually interviewed a set of key informants and then convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to solicit feedback on our approach. Throughout this iterative and collaborative process, we developed and refined a measurement framework based on the information provided across these various sources. Evaluation: Findings suggest data dashboards are a promising approach for presenting a parsimonious yet holistic picture of young peoples' well-being. Dashboards can highlight well-being's multidimensionality by categorizing indicators over different domains. Our framework organizes indicators over 5 types: child-centric, subjective well-being, contextual determinants, developmental, and equity-focused. The design and flexibility of dashboards can also highlight important gaps in data collection that are of interest to end users such as indicators not yet collected among the broader population. Furthermore, dashboards can include interactive features, such as selecting key data elements, that can help communities articulate priority areas for policy action, thereby generating momentum and enthusiasm for future iterations and improvements. Discussion: Data dashboards are well suited for engaging a variety of stakeholders on complex multidimensional concepts such as young peoples' well-being. However, to fulfill their promise, they should be codesigned and codeveloped through an iterative process with the stakeholders and community members they intend to serve.