Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter October 30, 2020

Psychosocial benefit and adherence of adolescents with chronic diseases participating in transition programs: a systematic review

  • Esther Ravens EMAIL logo , Johanna Becker , Lars Pape ORCID logo and Gundula Ernst


Chronically ill young people must transition to the adult health care service after their 18th birthday. The transition from child centred paediatric care to the adult health care service is not simply limited to the change from familiar structures to something unknown, but includes the entire process of growing up, of individuals becoming independent from their parents and taking responsibility for their own disease management. Young people are at particular risk of losing the connection to medical care during this phase and the transition of young people with chronic conditions is associated with a high risk of declining adherence and worsening health status. Studies suggest that transition programs might be helpful, yet there is no evidence as to whether risks can be reduced or which intervention components are particularly conducive to better outcome. This study aimed to identify transition-specific interventions and evaluate their effect on the improvement of psychosocial parameters, such as health related quality of life and adherence of patients. A systematic literature review was conducted. Electronic databases (Cochrane, Embase, Pubmed, Web of Science) were searched by two independent reviewers for intervention studies aiming to improve transition. Grey literature was also searched. Studies were included if they evaluated transition-specific interventions aiming to improve psychosocial or adherence parameters of participants aged 12 years and older suffering from a chronic condition. Both controlled trials and studies with measurements before an after the intervention were included. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of evidence. The inclusion criteria was met by forty studies. Patients suffered from different chronic conditions, such as inflammatory bowel disease, type 1 diabetes or juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Transition interventions used several program components, such as transition coordinators, patient education programs or web-based interventions. Outcomes included quality of life, transition-specific knowledge, adherence and loss to follow up. Thirty-eight studies showed beneficial effects in the intervention group, respectively after intervention. The overall study quality was low. A large number of studies evaluating transition-specific interventions was included. Transition-specific interventions seem to have beneficial effects on psychosocial outcomes and adherence. The promotion of health literacy, appointment arrangement service and the use of technical elements (websites, SMS) seem to be particularly helpful in the transition process. As the patient population was diverse, the results can be transferred to other diseases. Even though the overall study quality was poor, it is possible to draw some conclusions. Future studies should aim to include large numbers of patients over extended periods of time in order to assess long-term outcomes.


With the advances in modern medicine, more and more chronically ill children and adolescents are reaching adulthood [1]. For example, children with cystic fibrosis or congenital heart disease, who were previously only treated in paediatric departments, now regularly enter adulthood [2], [3]. In addition, the prevalence of other chronic diseases such as asthma or type 1 diabetes is increasing [4], [5]. Hence there is now a need for these patients to transition from the paediatric service to adult health care structures. Transition means the “purposeful, planned movement of adolescents and young adults with chronic physical and medical conditions from child centred to adult health care service” [6]. Therefore, transition is not simply limited to the transfer from patient-centred paediatrics to adult care but includes the entire process of growing up and becoming independent. Transition covers not only the medical needs of young people, but also the educational, professional and psychosocial aspects of life. This time window is especially challenging for adolescents with a chronic disease and their need of ongoing care [7], [8]. In Germany alone, at least 15% of young people have special health care needs [9], [10]. Studies from other countries show similar figures [11], [12]. During the transitional period, up to 40% of patients lose the connection to specialised health care services [13]. Numerous studies have shown that the time of transition is often accompanied by decreasing adherence, increasing loss to follow up and the declining health status of patients [14], [15], [16], [17]. Adolescents with complex diseases are particularly affected by these problems [18].

Although there are currently some approaches to improve transition [19], [20], there is a lack of generally applicable and cross-diagnostic standards and recommendations [21], [22]. In order to establish a transition-specific guideline, it is necessary to take into account previous scientific findings. Within the framework of evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews are essential to summarise and evaluate the results of previous research [23], [24]. Thus, they offer an up-to-date and comprehensive overview of the current state of science [25]. The purpose of this review is to identify transition-specific interventions and evaluate their effect on the improvement of patients’ psychosocial or adherence parameters. In addition, particularly helpful interventions will be identified.


Structure based on PRISMA

The established PRISMA checklist (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) and the PRISMA flow chart were used as a basis for the systematic literature research [24].

By using the PRISMA instrument, a well-founded scientific framework was provided for summarising individual studies into a systematic review. The PRISMA study flow chart is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: PRISMA Flowchart.
Figure 1:

PRISMA Flowchart.

Inclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria for the systematic literature search were defined with regard to the study population, the intervention, the study design and the outcome parameters investigated (PICO-framework) [26] and are shown in Table 1.

Table 1:

PICO framework defining inclusion criteria.

Can an intervention aimed to improve transition of care ameliorate psychosocial and behavioural outcomes of chronically ill young people?
Population12 years or older
Somatic chronic diseases or health conditions
InterventionIntervention aimed to improve transition of care
ComparisonControl group or comparison between two points of time (before and after intervention)
OutcomePsychosocial or behavioural outcomes


Studies were included if the participants were at least twelve years old and suffered from a chronic health condition or special health care need that led to a special need for medical care.

Psychiatric diseases or cognitive disabilities were not investigated.


All included studies had to examine an intervention aimed at improving the transition from paediatric to adult health care services.

Comparison, study design

To clearly identify possible effects, randomised controlled trials (RCT), intervention studies with non-randomised control groups (NRCTs) and trials with measurements before and after the intervention (pre-post-comparison) were included.


All studies measuring psychosocial and behavioural outcome parameters as a dependent variable were included. Psychosocial outcomes include measurements such as Health related Quality of life (HrQoL), stress level or transition readiness, whereas behavioural outcomes relate to adherence and the behaviour regarding follow up. Studies that exclusively examined somatic outcomes such as morbidity or mortality were not included.

Electronic searches


Two independent reviewers (Johanna Becker, Esther Ravens) searched the international electronic databases Cochrane Library, Embase, Pubmed and Web of Science Core Collection.

Search strategy

Since there is a 2011 review with similar inclusion criteria covering older literature [27], only studies with an English title and abstract, published between June 2011 and October 2018 were considered.

In order to make the search in the individual databases generally valid, databases were searched using the same transition- and age-specific search terms. Alternative spellings and truncations were considered. The search strategy was adapted for each database with database-specific keywords. All search strategies are listed in the online supplement (Supplementary Tables 1–4).

Searching other resources

In addition, a so-called grey literature screening was carried out, meaning that the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews were also searched. Authors of unpublished studies were contacted.

Study selection

After the deletion of duplicates, all titles and abstracts identified by the search in electronic databases or other sources were screened. The full text was obtained for all potentially relevant studies and checked for inclusion by both reviewers. Differences in assessment were discussed between reviewers in order to reach a consensus. In case of ambiguities regarding individual studies, the respective authors were contacted. All studies excluded are listed with reason for exclusion in the online supplement (Supplementary Table 5).

Certainty of evidence

To assess the certainty of evidence, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach [28] and a modified grading scale based on GRADE for better internal differentiation of studies with low to very low evidence quality was used.


The GRADE process was developed for the classification of recommendation strengths within the framework of guidelines and systematic reviews. Based on various criteria, the quality of evidence is divided into four levels – high, moderate, low or very low [28]. Usually, outcomes are graded separately [29]. However, in this review it was decided to grade per study, as it was estimated that heterogeneous outcome measures would prevent outcome summaries of different studies.

Modified grading scale

Since the results of former reviews indicate that transition studies often have a low quality of evidence, a modified grading scale was developed. The modified grading scale is based on GRADE, but allows better differentiation of the quality of evidence in the lower range. The modified grading scale divides the quality of evidence into eight levels, where one point corresponds to a very low evidence quality and eight points to a very high evidence quality. Table 2 provides an overview of the evaluation criteria of the modified grading scale.

Table 2:

Modified grading scale.

CriteriaPossible scorea
Randomised controlled trial2
Controlled trial1
No increased risk of selection bias1
No increased risk of other biases1
No indirectness of evidence1
Precision based on sample size:
n > 150 (or n > 40 if rare disease)1
n > 100 (or n > 20 if rare disease)1
  1. aFor each criterion met, the number of points indicated in the right column will be given (8 points in total). Rating: 1–2 points: very low quality; 3–4 points: low quality; 5–6 points: moderate quality; 7–8 points: high quality.


The search in the electronic databases and the grey literature screening identified 4933 records. After deletion of duplicates, the remaining 3077 titles and abstracts were screened for their relevance. The full text was obtained for 75 studies, of which 40 met the inclusion criteria.

Study design

Of the forty eligible studies, eight were RCTs and eighteen were controlled but not randomised. Of the studies without a randomised control group, six studies used a historical control group. Thirteen studies used comparisons between two points in time, pre- and post-transition. Three studies used a pre-post comparison in addition to the control group. One study compared different transition components and their associations with various outcomes.

Quality of evidence

When evaluating the studies with GRADE, ten studies achieved the quality level low, whereas thirty studies were classified as very low. Using the modified grading scale, the quality level of nine studies was classified as very low, twenty studies reached a low-quality level, ten studies reached a moderate-quality level and one study reached a high-quality level. Consistency and selective reporting could not be analysed due to heterogeneity of study characteristics and small sample size.


All forty studies together evaluated the outcomes of 3333 patients aged between 12 and 28 years.

Various diseases were examined, led by inflammatory bowel disease [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], type 1 diabetes [17], [34], [35], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], juvenile idiopathic arthritis [44], [45], [46] and congenital heart disease [47], [48], [49], [50]. Patients with cerebral palsy [37], cystic fibrosis [34], [35], [51], [52], [53], epilepsy [54], [55], sickle cell anaemia [56], liver transplant [57], [58], congenital adrenal hyperplasia [59], renal transplant [60], [61], haemophilia [62], warfarin therapy [63], chronic kidney disease [64], oesophageal atresia [65] and spina bifida [66] were also studied. One study examined children with diverse chronic diseases [67]. Apart from four studies investigating patients with various diseases [34], [35], [37], [67], all studies focused on patients with one disease.


Most studies evaluated combined transition interventions with at least two program components. Two studies evaluated an intervention consisting of a single component: a web-based intervention was evaluated by Ammerlaan et al. [68] and a patient education program intervention by Schmidt and colleagues [35]. One study did not conduct its own transition intervention, but examined associations between intervention components and outcomes in patients from different programs [37]. The different intervention programs focused both on the patients and the service provision. Figure 2 provides an overview of the various intervention components and their success.

Figure 2: Number of studies that evaluated certain intervention components.Total: total number of studies. Beneficial effects: Number of studies showing a significantly better outcome in the intervention group or in measurements after intervention compared to the control group or measurements before intervention. No effects: Number of studies showing no significant differences between groups or between measurements before and after intervention.
Figure 2:

Number of studies that evaluated certain intervention components.

Total: total number of studies. Beneficial effects: Number of studies showing a significantly better outcome in the intervention group or in measurements after intervention compared to the control group or measurements before intervention. No effects: Number of studies showing no significant differences between groups or between measurements before and after intervention.

A multidisciplinary team (n = 15 studies) [17], [31], [36], [39], [40], [46], [47], [51], [53], [55], [58], [59], [60], [64], [69] or a transition coordinator (n = 14 studies) [38], [39], [40], [41], [44], [45], [51], [54], [57], [60], [61], [62], [66], [69] were most frequently used in intervention components. A multidisciplinary team means that, in addition to doctors and nurses, professionals from at least one other discipline, such as psychologists or dieticians, were involved in the program. Transition coordinators work in specially created divisions covering a range of activities regarding the transition process. A transition coordinator most commonly had intensified patient contact during the whole transition process and helped with making appointments or the provision of information. The program component patient education (n = 13 studies) [17], [35], [40], [48], [49], [50], [51], [54], [63], [64], [65], [67], [69] includes not only transition or disease-specific knowledge education, but also training on transition-specific skills and competences. Patient education took place both individually and in groups depending on the study. Ten studies worked with a document summarising important patient information for the new treatment team [17], [33], [38], [43], [49], [54], [57], [60], [61], [63]. Nine studies worked with a web-based intervention, for example a special web-site access, chat rooms or online documentation systems for medical parameters, such as international normalised ratio (INR) or blood glucose level [17], [34], [40], [62], [63], [65], [67], [68], [69]. Eight institutions set up a transition clinic to which patients were transferred after paediatric care [31], [33], [36], [39], [46], [55], [61], [64]. These clinics often had more staff, longer appointments and treated only patients of transition age. Whenever a clinic planned a special sequence of events around the transition, this was summarised under a transition plan (n = 7 studies) [31], [43], [44], [46], [47], [51], [63]. The age of transition was individually determined by seven institutions [31], [38], [45], [46], [58], [63], [66]. The Transition Readiness Assessment Questionnaire (TRAQ) [49], [50], [52], [66] was a common method for determining age. Another seven studies observed the effect of a telephone or SMS service as an appointment reminder or alternative way of keeping contact [17], [34], [38], [41], [42], [43], [50]. Joint visits are appointments where, in addition to the paediatric team, the new adult treating team is also involved and these were conducted in five studies [31], [38], [51], [52], [59]. The first appointment at the new treatment institution was made for the patients by a member of the paediatric team in four studies [17], [43], [45], [56]. Additionally, four studies used a workbook or alternative information material [45], [48], [49], [52].

All investigated components achieved positive rather than no results much more frequently, with the exception of the transition clinic. Out of eight studies investigating a transition clinic, four reached significantly positive results.


The forty studies included in the review investigated several outcomes relating to psychosocial and behavioural measurements. Psychosocial outcomes include HrQoL, well-being, disease-related self-management and -efficacy, patient activation, transition readiness and competence, transition or health-specific knowledge and independence, especially from parents. Behavioural outcomes refer to the adherence behaviour of patients. Medication adherence or the adherence to blood measurements (e.g. INR), follow up and a stable transfer fall under this heading. Jensen et al. defined a successful transfer as at least two visits at the new adult treatment site [45]. Psychosocial outcomes were analysed in twenty-eight studies (7863 patients) and adherence outcomes in eighteen studies (1708 patients).

Studies were considered successful if at least one patient-relevant outcome was significantly improved. None of the included studies showed a deterioration of the intervention group compared to the control group. Two studies showed a deterioration of outcomes in pre-post comparison [60], [63]. Annunziato et al. [60] showed a significant deterioration in medication adherence after implementing a transition program consisting of a transfer summary, a transfer plan and a social worker for 22 renal transplant patients. Bauman and team [63] also implemented a transition summary and plan, but additionally included an online program and an individual transfer time. The study population comprised nineteen adolescents with different diseases requiring warfarin therapy. The adherence of INR blood measurement and documentation showed a significant decrease during the study period; all other measured outcomes remained constant.

Both studies examining transition competence showed improvements [35], [67]. Transition preparedness/readiness could be improved in 75% of the relevant studies [53], [62], [66]. The rate of loss to follow up or drop out could be improved in 40% of the studies investigating this outcome [43], [56], [58], [61]. Another 30% of these did not record a single patient lost to follow up [38], [53], [57]. One study showed a correlation of young age with non-attendance of medical appointments [59], whilst another study showed a correspondence between transition-specific knowledge and appointment perception [58]. Self-efficacy [34], [35], [36], [62] or the time span between appointments [47], [50] each showed improvements in 66% of the studies examining these outcomes. Of the studies investigating transition or health-specific knowledge, 63% showed positive results [48], [49], [50], [62], [65], [67], [69]. 50% of the studies examining well-being showed improvements [38], [40], [42]. Half of the studies surveying disease-related self-management [34], [49], [50], [62] showed significant improvements. Patient activation was improved in two out of four studies [34], [35], [54], [67].

Of both studies scrutinising adherence to blood measurement [17], [63], one showed a significant decrease [63]. The independence of patients [55] and the completion of transfer [45] could be improved in 33% of the studies examining these outcomes. 28% of the studies looking at medication adherence showed improvements [31], [57], whereas 14% demonstrated a decline [60]. HrQoL did not change in any study.

A detailed table with the characteristics of all studies, interventions, outcomes and grade rating can be found in the online supplement (Supplementary Table 6).


The purpose of this review was to identify transition-specific interventions and to evaluate their effect on the psychosocial and adherence parameters of adolescents. To this end, forty studies examining a total of 3333 patients could be included. Since these studies focused on various diseases and intervention components, the findings of the review are a valuable contribution to previous transition research. Compared to previous reviews [27], [70], more studies were identified, which underlines the increasing importance of the topic of transition.

A review published by Crowley et al. in 2011 [27] included ten studies, all focusing on type 1 diabetes. Due to the poor methodological quality of the studies under scrutiny, the significance of the review was limited. Furthermore, it is questionable whether the results can be transferred to other diseases. Campbell and co-workers [70] evaluated four RCTs in 2016. The review was able to show slight improvements in disease management, self-efficacy, transition or health-specific knowledge and transition readiness. In addition, it found that transition interventions may not lead to an improvement in quality of life or well-being. However, psychosocial factors in particular are of great importance for adolescents beginning to take long-term responsibility for their own health behaviours [71]. Skills such as self-efficacy, self-management and disease-specific knowledge enable adolescents to take control of their lives. A high degree of empowerment among adolescences can lead to an improvement in psychosocial outcomes such as HRQoL, well-being and independence, the foundation of a solid health status [72].

Both reviews had difficulties evaluating the results of single components of combined interventions. These findings are in line with our findings. Since most studies combined several components into one intervention, it is difficult to attribute effects to single components. However, it seems reasonable to combine several intervention components. The results also suggest that a promotion of health literacy, an appointment arrangement service and the use of technical elements such as websites or telephone/SMS interventions seem to be particularly beneficial to the transition process. Out of online programs and patient education, disease- or transition-specific knowledge and transition competence seem to be of especial benefit. Previous reviews come to a similar conclusion: both Crowley et al. [73] and Campbell and team [70] identified patient education to be particularly helpful. The Campbell results also suggest that interventions using technology may have a favourable effect on self-efficacy and self-management.

The success rate of the interventions differs widely across the heterogeneous outcomes. Transition competence, transition preparedness/readiness and loss to follow up responded very well to interventions. The outcomes adherence, transfer, independence and HRQoL could be improved in less than half of the studies. These outcomes will need special attention in future research studies.

However, it must be said that in this review, success was defined as a significant improvement of one outcome parameter. Since the main danger of transition lies in the deterioration of health during the time of transfer, it would be worth considering whether the stabilisation of an outcome parameter could also be considered a success. For example, no deterioration was shown for HRQoL in any of the included studies, meaning that this particular outcome was successful in each study.

Furthermore, the initial value of HRQoL before intervention should also be included in the evaluation. Depending on the severity of disease, the DISABKIDS field study [74] describes the HRQoL of children and adolescents ranging from 67.2 to 80.4 points evaluated using the DISABKIDS Chronic Generic Measure. Compared with this, some included studies already showed above average values even before the intervention started [57], [67], [75], whereby a stabilisation of these values could be considered a great success.

Of course, the overall low study quality is a limitation of the results of this review. In addition to the low methodology quality of those studies included in the review, comparability is also limited due to differences in the length of observation periods and the collection of results. In most studies, the results were collected over a period of 6 months to 1 year, making it difficult to draw conclusions about long-term effects. Nevertheless, even short observation periods can assess whether an intervention has the potential to influence transition.

It is important to note that there are certain challenges when conducting transition interventions. Not only is the target population very diverse, but it is also difficult to find sufficiently large numbers of participating patients [41]. The blinding of the groups is usually neither possible nor useful and the observation periods for long-term health outcomes would be ideally life-long. In addition, there are those who consider RCTs on transition to be unethical, since the control group is denied access to a potentially helpful intervention [36], [76].

Despite these concerns, there were eight RCTs with relatively high study quality and several non-randomised trials with a moderate-quality level, which were included in the review. The outcomes of studies with lower quality were consistent with those from studies with high and moderate quality, indicating that low-quality studies might offer important contributions to knowledge in this context.

Due to the large diversity of examined diseases, it is possible to transfer the results to a wide spectrum of patients and conditions. Therefore, the evidence provided by this review forms the basis for the development of future recommendations, providing the opportunity of establishing a transition-specific guideline with disease-crossing validity.


The evidence of this review suggests that transition interventions are beneficial to improve relevant patient outcomes. There are many intervention components which can be used individually or in combination. The promotion of health literacy, appointment arrangement services and the use of technical elements such as websites or telephone/SMS interventions seem to be particularly beneficial to the psychosocial outcomes of the transition process and help to improve adherence. Guidelines should be based on the results of the present review, but must also be supported by expert consensus, as there is a partial lack of solid evidence.

Future studies should aim to include larger numbers of patients over long periods of time to be able to assess long-term outcomes. In addition, it would be helpful for future evaluations to examine single intervention components separately. Currently, there are several ongoing high-quality studies with large numbers of patients, the results of which are awaited with anticipation.

  1. Author contributions: ER and JB have performed the literature research. ER has written the first version of the manuscript, JB, GE and LP have revised the manuscript and participated in study design. All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  2. Research funding: Authors state no funding involved.

  3. Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.


1. Giarelli E, Bernhardt BA, Mack R, Pyeritz RE. Adolescents’ transition to self-management of a chronic genetic disorder. Qual Health Res 2008;18:441–57.10.1177/1049732308314853Search in Google Scholar

2. Dodge JA, Lewis PA, Stanton M, Wilsher J. Cystic fibrosis mortality and survival in the UK: 1947–2003. Eur Respir J 2007;29:522–6.10.1183/09031936.00099506Search in Google Scholar

3. Moons P, Meijboom FJ. Healthcare provision for adults with congenital heart disease in Europe: a review. Curr Opin Pediatr 2010;22:573–8.10.1097/MOP.0b013e32833e1429Search in Google Scholar

4. Soltesz G, Patterson C, Dahlquist G, EURODIAB Study Group. Worldwide childhood type 1 diabetes incidence–what can we learn from epidemiology? Pediatr Diabetes 2007;8:6–14.10.1111/j.1399-5448.2007.00280.xSearch in Google Scholar

5. Stock S, Redaelli M, Luengen M, Wendland G, Civello D, Lauterbach KW. Asthma: prevalence and cost of illness. Eur Respir J 2005;25:47–53.10.1183/09031936.04.00116203Search in Google Scholar

6. Blum R, Garell D, Hodgman C, Jorissen T, Okinow N, Orr D, et al. Transition from child-centered to adult health-care systems for adolescents with chronic conditions. J Adolesc Health 1993;14:570–6.10.1016/1054-139X(93)90143-DSearch in Google Scholar

7. Caflisch M. Wenn chronisch kranke Jugendliche erwachsen werden. Pädiatrie 2013;2:4–10.Search in Google Scholar

8. Yeo M, Sawyer S. Chronic illness and disability. Br Med J 2005;330:721–3.10.1136/bmj.330.7493.721Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

9. Scheidt-Nave C, Ellert U, Thyen U, Schlaud M. [Prevalence and characteristics of children and youth with special health care needs (CSHCN) in the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS)]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2007;50:750–6. [Article in German]10.1007/s00103-007-0237-3Search in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Greiner W, Batram M, Damm O, Scholz S, Witte J. Kinder-und Jugendreport 2018. Beiträge zur Gesundheitsökonomie und Versorgungsforschung (Band 23). Heidelberg: Medhochzwei Verlag GmbH; ISBN 978-3-86216-448-6. 2018.Search in Google Scholar

11. Hagell A. Building a picture of health from data. J Fam Health 2015;25:32–3.Search in Google Scholar

12. Suris JC, Michaud PA, Viner R. The adolescent with a chronic condition. Part I: developmental issues. Arch Dis Child 2004;89:938–42.10.1136/adc.2003.045369Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

13. Van Walleghem N, Macdonald CA, Dean HJ. Evaluation of a systems navigator model for transition from pediatric to adult care for young adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2008;31:1529–30.10.2337/dc07-2247Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

14. Annunziato R, Emre S, Shneider B, Barton C, Dugan C, Shemesh E. Adherence and medical outcomes in pediatric liver transplant recipients who transition to adult services. Pediatr Transplant 2007;11:608–14.10.1111/j.1399-3046.2007.00689.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

15. Okumura MJ, Hersh AO, Hilton JF, Lotstein DS. Change in health status and access to care in young adults with special health care needs: results from the 2007 national survey of adult transition and health. J Adolesc Health 2013;52:413–8.10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.08.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed

16. Cameron F, Amin R, de Beaufort C, Codner E, Acerini C. ISPAD Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines 2014. Diabetes in adolescence. Pediatr Diabetes 2014;15(Suppl 20):245–56.10.1111/pedi.12169Search in Google Scholar PubMed

17. Agarwal S, Raymond JK, Schutta MH, Cardillo S, Miller VA, Long JA. An adult health care-based pediatric to adult transition program for emerging adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Educ 2017;43:87–96.10.1177/0145721716677098Search in Google Scholar PubMed

18. Bloom SR, Kuhlthau K, Van Cleave J, Knapp AA, Newacheck P, Perrin JM. Health care transition for youth with special health care needs. J Adolesc Health 2012;51:213–9.10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.01.007Search in Google Scholar PubMed

19. Willis ER, McDonagh JE. Transition from children’s to adults’ services for young people using health or social care services (NICE Guideline NG43). Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed 2018;103:253–6.10.1136/archdischild-2017-313208Search in Google Scholar PubMed

20. Foster HE, Minden K, Clemente D, Leon L, McDonagh JE, Kamphuis S, et al. EULAR/PReS standards and recommendations for the transitional care of young people with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:639–46.10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210112Search in Google Scholar PubMed

21. Oldhafer M. Transitionsmedizin: Multiprofessionelle Begleitung junger Erwachsener mit chronischer Krankheit. Stuttgart: Schattauer Verlag; ISBN-10: 3794531248. 2015.Search in Google Scholar

22. Snow V, Beck D, Budnitz T, Miller DC, Potter J, Wears RL, et al. Transitions of Care Consensus policy statement: American College of Physicians, Society of General Internal Medicine, Society of Hospital Medicine, American Geriatrics Society, American College of Emergency Physicians, and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. J Hosp Med 2009;4:364–70.10.1002/jhm.510Search in Google Scholar PubMed

23. Kunz R, Ollenschläger G, Raspe H, Jonitz G, Donner-Banzhoff N. Lehrbuch evidenzbasierte Medizin in Klinik und Praxis. Köln: Deutscher Ärzteverlag 2007;2.Search in Google Scholar

24. Liberati A, Altman D, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche P, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine 2009;6:e1000100.10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

25. Walther S, Schuetz GM, Hamm B, Dewey M. Berichtsqualität systematischer Reviews und Metaanalysen: PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses). Rofo 2011;183:1106–10. [Article in German].10.1055/s-0031-1281809Search in Google Scholar PubMed

26. Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club 1995;123:A12–3.10.7326/ACPJC-1995-123-3-A12Search in Google Scholar

27. Crowley R, Wolfe I, Lock K, McKee M. Improving the transition between paediatric and adult healthcare: a systematic review. Arch Dis Child 2011;96:548–53.10.1136/adc.2010.202473Search in Google Scholar PubMed

28. Brozek JL, Akl EA, Alonso Coello P, Lang D, Jaeschke R, Williams JW, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Part 1 of 3. An overview of the GRADE approach and grading quality of evidence about interventions. Allergy 2009;64:669–77.10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.01973.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

29. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:383–94.10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026Search in Google Scholar PubMed

30. Ammerlaan J, van Os-Medendorp H, de Boer-Nijhof N, Scholtus L, Kruize AA, van Pelt P, et al. Short term effectiveness and experiences of a peer guided web-based self-management intervention for young adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J 2017;15:75.10.1186/s12969-017-0201-1Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

31. Cole R, Ashok D, Razack A, Azaz A, Sebastian S. Evaluation of outcomes in adolescent inflammatory bowel disease patients following transfer from pediatric to adult health care services: case for transition. J Adolesc Health 2015;57:212–7.10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.04.012Search in Google Scholar PubMed

32. Fishman LN, Ziniel SI, Adrichem ME, Fernandes SM, Arnold J. Provider awareness alone does not improve transition readiness skills in adolescent patients with inflammatory bowel disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2014;59:221–4.10.1097/MPG.0000000000000405Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

33. Fu N, Jacobson K, Round A, Evans K, Qian H, Bressler B. Transition clinic attendance is associated with improved beliefs and attitudes toward medicine in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. World J Gastroenterol 2017;23:5405–11.10.3748/wjg.v23.i29.5405Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

34. Huang JS, Terrones L, Tompane T, Dillon L, Pian M, Gottschalk M, et al. Preparing adolescents with chronic disease for transition to adult care: a technology program. Pediatrics 2014;133:e1639–46.10.1542/peds.2013-2830Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

35. Schmidt S, Herrmann-Garitz C, Bomba F, Thyen U. A multicenter prospective quasi-experimental study on the impact of a transition-oriented generic patient education program on health service participation and quality of life in adolescents and young adults. Patient Educ Couns 2016;99:421–8.10.1016/j.pec.2015.10.024Search in Google Scholar PubMed

36. Yerushalmy-Feler A, Ron Y, Barnea E, Nachum A, Matalon S, Dali-Levy M, et al. Adolescent transition clinic in inflammatory bowel disease: quantitative assessment of self-efficacy skills. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;29:831–7.10.1097/MEG.0000000000000864Search in Google Scholar

37. Colver A, McConachie H, Le Couteur A, Dovey-Pearce G, Mann KD, McDonagh JE, et al. A longitudinal, observational study of the features of transitional healthcare associated with better outcomes for young people with long-term conditions. BMC Med 2018;16:111.10.1186/s12916-018-1102-ySearch in Google Scholar

38. Egan EA, Corrigan J, Shurpin K. Building the bridge from pediatric to adult diabetes care: making the connection. Diabetes Educ 2015;41:432–43.10.1177/0145721715581666Search in Google Scholar

39. Levy-Shraga Y, Elisha N, Ben-Ami M, Boyko V, Lerner-Geva L, Ziv T, et al. Glycemic control and clinic attendance of emerging adults with type 1 diabetes at a transition care clinic. Acta Diabetol 2016;53:27–33.10.1007/s00592-015-0734-zSearch in Google Scholar

40. Sequeira PA, Pyatak EA, Weigensberg MJ, Vigen CP, Wood JR, Ruelas V, et al. Let’s Empower and Prepare (LEAP): evaluation of a structured transition program for young adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2015;38:1412–9.10.2337/dc14-2577Search in Google Scholar

41. Steinbeck KS, Shrewsbury VA, Harvey V, Mikler K, Donaghue KC, Craig ME, et al. A pilot randomized controlled trial of a post-discharge program to support emerging adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus transition from pediatric to adult care. Pediatr Diabetes 2015;16:634–9.10.1111/pedi.12229Search in Google Scholar

42. Weigensberg MJ, Vigen C, Sequeira P, Spruijt-Metz D, Juarez M, Florindez D, et al. Diabetes Empowerment Council: Integrative pilot intervention for transitioning young adults with type 1 diabetes. Glob Adv Health Med 2018;7:2164956118761808. doi: 10.1177/2164956118761808.10.1177/2164956118761808Search in Google Scholar

43. White M, O’Connell MA, Cameron FJ. Clinic attendance and disengagement of young adults with type 1 diabetes after transition of care from paediatric to adult services (TrACeD): a randomised, open-label, controlled trial. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 2017;1:274–83.10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30089-5Search in Google Scholar

44. Hilderson D, Moons P, Van der Elst K, Luyckx K, Wouters C, Westhovens R. The clinical impact of a brief transition programme for young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: results of the DON’T RETARD project. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2016;55:133–42.10.1093/rheumatology/kev284Search in Google Scholar PubMed

45. Jensen PT, Karnes J, Jones K, Lehman A, Rennebohm R, Higgins GC, et al. Quantitative evaluation of a pediatric rheumatology transition program. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J 2015;13:17.10.1186/s12969-015-0013-0Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

46. Walter M, Kamphuis S, van Pelt P, de Vroed A, Hazes JM. Successful implementation of a clinical transition pathway for adolescents with juvenile-onset rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J 2018;16:50.10.1186/s12969-018-0268-3Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

47. Hergenroeder AC, Moodie DS, Penny DJ, Wiemann CM, Sanchez-Fournier B, Moore LK, et al. Functional classification of heart failure before and after implementing a healthcare transition program for youth and young adults transferring from a pediatric to an adult congenital heart disease clinics. Congenit Heart Dis 2018;13:548–53.10.1111/chd.12604Search in Google Scholar PubMed

48. Ladouceur M, Calderon J, Traore M, Cheurfi R, Pagnon C, Khraiche D, et al. Educational needs of adolescents with congenital heart disease: impact of a transition intervention programme. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 2017;110:317–24.10.1016/j.acvd.2017.02.001Search in Google Scholar PubMed

49. Mackie AS, Islam S, Magill-Evans J, Rankin KN, Robert C, Schuh M, et al. Healthcare transition for youth with heart disease: a clinical trial. Heart 2014;100:1113–8.10.1136/heartjnl-2014-305748Search in Google Scholar PubMed

50. Mackie AS, Rempel GR, Kovacs AH, Kaufman M, Rankin KN, Jelen A, et al. Transition intervention for adolescents with congenital heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;71:1768–77.10.1016/j.jacc.2018.02.043Search in Google Scholar PubMed

51. Chaudhry SR, Keaton M, Nasr SZ. Evaluation of a cystic fibrosis transition program from pediatric to adult care. Pediatr Pulmonol 2013;48:658–65.10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2011.183.1_MeetingAbstracts.A1114Search in Google Scholar

52. Okumura MJ, Ong T, Dawson D, Nielson D, Lewis N, Richards M, et al. Improving transition from paediatric to adult cystic fibrosis care: programme implementation and evaluation. BMJ Qual Saf 2014;23(Suppl 1):i64–i72.10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002364Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

53. Skov M, Teilmann G, Damgaard IN, Nielsen KG, Hertz PG, Holgersen MG, et al. Initiating transitional care for adolescents with cystic fibrosis at the age of 12 is both feasible and promising. Acta Paediatr 2018;107:1977–82.10.1111/apa.14388Search in Google Scholar PubMed

54. Disabato JA, Cook PF, Hutton L, Dinkel T, Levisohn PM. Transition from pediatric to adult specialty care for adolescents and young adults with refractory epilepsy: a quality improvement approach. J Pediatr Nurs 2015;30:e37–45.10.1016/j.pedn.2015.06.014Search in Google Scholar PubMed

55. Geerlings RP, Aldenkamp AP, Gottmer-Welschen LM, van Staa AL, de Louw AJ. Long-term effects of a multidisciplinary transition intervention from paediatric to adult care in patients with epilepsy. Seizure 2016;38:46–53.10.1016/j.seizure.2016.04.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed

56. Hankins JS, Osarogiagbon R, Adams-Graves P, McHugh L, Steele V, Smeltzer MP, et al. A transition pilot program for adolescents with sickle cell disease. J Pediatr Health Care 2012;26:e45–9.10.1016/j.pedhc.2012.06.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed

57. Annunziato RA, Baisley MC, Arrato N, Barton C, Henderling F, Arnon R, et al. Strangers headed to a strange land? A pilot study of using a transition coordinator to improve transfer from pediatric to adult services. J Pediatr 2013;163:1628–33.10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.07.031Search in Google Scholar PubMed

58. Fredericks EM, Magee JC, Eder SJ, Sevecke JR, Dore-Stites D, Shieck V, et al. Quality improvement targeting adherence during the transition from a pediatric to adult liver transplant clinic. J Clin Psychol Med Settings 2015;22:150–9.10.1007/s10880-015-9427-6Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

59. Gleeson H, Davis J, Jones J, O’Shea E, Clayton PE. The challenge of delivering endocrine care and successful transition to adult services in adolescents with congenital adrenal hyperplasia: experience in a single centre over 18 years. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2013;78:23–8.10.1111/cen.12053Search in Google Scholar PubMed

60. Annunziato RA, Parbhakar M, Kapoor K, Matloff R, Casey N, Benchimol C, et al. Can transition to adult care for transplant recipients be improved by intensified services while patients are still in pediatrics? Prog Transplant 2015;25:236–42.10.7182/pit2015599Search in Google Scholar PubMed

61. McQuillan RF, Toulany A, Kaufman M, Schiff JR. Benefits of a transfer clinic in adolescent and young adult kidney transplant patients. Can J Kidney Health Dis 2015;2:45.10.1186/s40697-015-0081-6Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

62. Breakey VR, Ignas DM, Warias AV, White M, Blanchette VS, Stinson JN. A pilot randomized control trial to evaluate the feasibility of an Internet-based self-management and transitional care program for youth with haemophilia. Haemophilia 2014;20:784–93.10.1111/hae.12488Search in Google Scholar PubMed

63. Bauman ME, Kuhle S, Bruce AA, Bolster L, Massicotte MP. The journey for adolescents and young adults with chronic conditions transitioning to adult care with successful warfarin management. Thromb Res 2016;141:183–8.10.1016/j.thromres.2016.03.019Search in Google Scholar PubMed

64. Tong A, Gow K, Wong G, Henning P, Carroll R. Patient perspectives of a young adult renal clinic: a mixed-methods evaluation. Nephrology 2015;20:352–9.10.1111/nep.12396Search in Google Scholar PubMed

65. Dingemann J, Szczepanski R, Ernst G, Thyen U, Ure B, Goll M, et al. Transition of patients with esophageal atresia to adult care: results of a transition-specific education program. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2017;27:61–7.10.1055/s-0036-1587334Search in Google Scholar PubMed

66. Seeley A, Lindeke L. Developing a transition care coordination program for youth with spina bifida. J Pediatr Health Care 2017;31:627–33.10.1016/j.pedhc.2017.04.015Search in Google Scholar PubMed

67. Menrath I, Ernst G, Szczepanski R, Lange K, Bomba F, Staab D, et al. Effectiveness of a generic transition-oriented patient education program in a multicenter, prospective and controlled study. J Transition Med 2018;1. Available at: doi: in Google Scholar

68. Ammerlaan J, van Os-Medendorp H, de Boer-Nijhof N, Scholtus L, Kruize AA, van Pelt P, et al. Short term effectiveness and experiences of a peer guided web-based self-management intervention for young adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J 2017;15:75.10.1186/s12969-017-0201-1Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

69. Pyatak EA, Sequeira PA, Vigen CL, Weigensberg MJ, Wood JR, Montoya L, et al. Clinical and psychosocial outcomes of a structured transition program among young adults with type 1 diabetes. J Adolesc Health 2017;60:212–8.10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.09.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

70. Campbell F, Biggs K, Aldiss SK, O’Neill PM, Clowes M, McDonagh J, et al. Transition of care for adolescents from paediatric services to adult health services. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;4:CD009794.10.1002/14651858.CD009794.pub2Search in Google Scholar PubMed

71. Anderson RM, Funnell MM. Patient empowerment: reflections on the challenge of fostering the adoption of a new paradigm. Patient Educ Couns 2005;57:153–7.10.1016/j.pec.2004.05.008Search in Google Scholar PubMed

72. Bravo P, Edwards A, Barr PJ, Scholl I, Elwyn G, McAllister M. Conceptualising patient empowerment: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv Res 2015;15:252.10.1186/s12913-015-0907-zSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

73. Crowley R, Wolfe I, Lock K, McKee M. Improving the transition between paediatric and adult healthcare: a systematic review. Arch Dis Child 2011;96:548–53.10.1136/adc.2010.202473Search in Google Scholar PubMed

74. European DISABKIDS Group. The DISABKIDS questionnaires: Quality of life questionnaires for children with chronic conditions. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers; ISBN 3-89967-166-X. 2006.Search in Google Scholar

75. Dingemann J, Szczepanski R, Ernst G, Thyen U, Ure B, Goll M, et al. Transition of patients with esophageal atresia to adult care: results of a transition-specific education program. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2017;27:61–7.10.1055/s-0036-1587334Search in Google Scholar PubMed

76. McDonagh JE, Southwood TR, Shaw KL, British Society of Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology. The impact of a coordinated transitional care programme on adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007;46:161–8.10.1093/rheumatology/kel198Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Supplementary Material

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (DOI:

Received: 2020-08-06
Accepted: 2020-09-16
Published Online: 2020-10-30

©2020 Esther Ravens, Johanna Becker, Lars Pape and Gundula Ernst, published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Downloaded on 23.3.2023 from
Scroll Up Arrow