Table 1.
Reference | Programme | Country | Setting | Diseases | Age at enrolment (years) | Designated transition staff | Transition readiness assessment | Programme components | Shared care | Age of transfer | Evaluation | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jensen et al. (2015) [36] | Social worker–centred paediatric rheumatology transition program | USA | Paediatric rheumatology clinic | Any RMD requiring transfer to adult rheumatology | Median 18 (15–26) | Social worker |
Rheumatology-specific workbook including self-reflective questions Written transition goals reviewed at clinic visits |
Face-to-face meetings with social worker at clinic visits and interim phone calls; facilitation of the adult appointment; phone call follow-up 6–8 months post transfer | No | When paediatric rheumatologists deemed appropriate |
Satisfaction questionnaire Attendance at adult rheumatology clinic Compared with the control group who had not participated in the programme |
81% satisfied 42% successful transition vs 23% controls (p = 0.002) |
Stringer et al. (2015) [37] | Rheumatology transition clinic | Canada | Paediatric rheumatology clinic | Any RMD but majority JIA | 2 years prior to completion of high school | None specific | No checklists used | 3–6 combined MDT clinics per year with adult rheumatologist present | Yes |
Aim to transfer when finished high school and their disease is quiescent 17–20 years |
Questionnaire Follow-up rate post transfer |
Overall satisfaction Variation in the adequacy of how transition issues were addressed High rate of follow-up post transfer |
Walter et al. (2018) [38] | Clinical transition pathway for adolescents with juvenile-onset RMD | Netherlands | Adolescent clinic in adult rheumatology setting | RMD | 12–14 years | None specific | Individualised transition plans (ITP) [33] |
Clinical pathway Dedicated adolescent clinic |
Yes | 17–18 depending on the patient’s perceived skills, personal wishes in discussion with health professionals |
Review of electronic patient records Frequency of dropout of care Use of ITPs Transfer experience: OYOF-TES [39] Self-efficacy scale OYOF-SES [40] |
Reduced loss to follow-up High scores for satisfaction and self-efficacy |