Journal of Child Health Care 2025, Vol. 29(1) 204-221
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1367493523118491
journals.sagepub.com/home/chc
S Sage

Check for updates
Systematic review
Supportive use of digital technologies during transition to adult healthcare for young people with long-term conditions, focusing on Type I diabetes mellitus: A scoping review
Joy Orpin’©, Alison Rodriguez, Deborah Harrop, Elizabeth Mills, Fiona Campbell, Jacqueline Martin-Kerry5® , James Turner1, Janet Horsman’® , Jon Painter’®, Maddie Julian, Paul Dimitri, Philippa Howsley7, and Veronica Swallow1
Abstract
Type I diabetes mellitus (TIDM) is the second most common chronic or long-term condition (LTC) affecting young people (YP); when transitioning from paediatric to adult healthcare, young people with LTCs such as TIDM are expected to self-manage medication, diet and clinical appointments. This scoping review aimed to analyse research examining ways digital health technologies were used to support YP with LTCs during transition from paediatric to adult healthcare and to establish YP’s needs, experiences and challenges when transitioning. We aimed to identify knowledge gaps and inform development of a novel chatbot with components such as avatars and linked videos to help YP with TIDM gain self-management confidence and competence during 
transition. Nineteen studies identified through searching five electronic databases were included in this review. A combination of digital health technologies was used to support transition of YP with LTCs to adult healthcare. Barriers to successful transition were reported and YP described the importance of social relationships and transition readiness and expressed the need for individualised interventions that acknowledge social factors such as work and college. No supportive chatbots with components to help YP with TIDM were identified. This contribution will inform future development and evaluation of such a chatbot.
Keywords
digital technology, chronic disease, transition to adult care, diabetes mellitus, Type 1, adolescent and young adult
Introduction
Approximately 15 million people in England have a long-term condition (LTC). Care for people with LTCs is estimated to take up around £7 in every £10 of total health and social care expenditure in the United Kingdom (UK) (Department of Healtlr and Social Care, 2015). There is no cure for LTCs, but patients with LTCs can manage such conditions with medication or other forms of therapy, for example, self-management support. LTCs such as type 1 diabetes mellitus (TIDM), asthma and epilepsy often develop during childhood and continue into adulthood (Department of Health, 2012). LTCs can have a detrimental physical, psychosocial and mental health impact on ΥΡ and their families, especially as they struggle to balance management of and stigma related to their condition with daily activities (Bronner et al., 2020; Wilson and Stock, 2019).
One of the significant challenges in supporting young people with LTCs is when the responsibility for healthcare is passed from a child-centred to an adult-oriented healthcare provider (Colver et al., 2019). Transition is defined as a purposeful, planned process that addresses the medical, psychosocial, educational and vocational needs of ΥΡ with LTCs as they move from child- centred to adult-oriented healthcare systems (Care Quality Commission, 2014; Department of Health, 2006; NICE, 2016). The transition process should begin in early adolescence, involve the YP, be developmentally appropriate, holistic, and be directed towards self-management and promotion of self-efficacy (Care Quality Commission, 2014; Colver et al., 2018), thus ensuring that YP are equipped with the skills and information needed to successfully self-manage their condition (NICE, 2016; NHS England, 2016).
For many ΥΡ with LTCs, transition from paediatric to adult care can be challenging, and around 50% report inadequate support and services during their transition (McManus et al., 2013; Stinson et al., 2014; Toomey et al., 2013). As an example, YP with TIDM report difficulties during Transition Clinic appointments and express dissatisfaction with the transition services (Archibald and Ashford, 2018; Hanna and Woodward, 2013).
Poor transition of ΥΡ with TIDM leads to significant health consequences due to poor clinic attendance, poor glycaemic control, disengagement from health services, and deteriorating physical and mental health (Leavey et al., 2019; Lotstein et al., 2013; Sheehan et al., 2015; Singh et al., 2010). Blood glucose control in TIDM substantially declines amongst ΥΡ aged 18-30 years, with only 14% meeting the required level (Miller et al., 2015), leading to nearly one-third of YP having evidence of early diabetes-related complications by the time of transition and a 2.5-fold elevated risk of poor glycaemic control by their first adult-service visit (Dabelea et al., 2017). Critically, poorly controlled TIDM can have acute life-threatening complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) (Morris et al., 1997) and life-disabling chronic complications, including both micro- and macro-vascular disease (Demirel et al., 2013). The highest rates of DKA are seen in ΥΡ aged 1520 years during transition (Karges et al., 2015).
Well-planned transition can improve educational, clinical and social outcomes for ΥΡ (Campbell et al., 2016; Crowley et al., 2011; Dogba et al., 2014). Transition interventions that focus on collaboration between ΥΡ and healthcare teams, patient education, and specific transition clinics, and that have a solid theoretical approach and include a partnership with parents, can improve transition readiness in ΥΡ, support successful transition and improve post-transition outcomes (Campbell et al., 2016; Crowley et al., 2011; Dogba et al., 2014). In YP with TIDM, support throughout transition results in improved glycaemic control, increased clinic attendance, fewer episodes of hospitalisation, lower rates of hypoglycaemia, better self-care and self-management, and increased knowledge of TIDM (Sheehan et al., 2015).
Digital interventions and support have potential to provide ΥΡ with holistic and easily accessible medical, educational/vocational, and psychosocial support that are not available or accessible during conventional clinic appointments (Gentles et al., 2010; Sutcliffe et al., 2011). During transition, YP find that the internet provides access to informational support at convenient times enabling them to maintain a high level of autonomy and anonymity, reducing feelings of isolation, reducing embarrassment about knowledge gaps and increasing their sense of autonomy (Rasmussen et al., 2007, 2011). However, digital interventions are not always evidence-based, disease specific, informed by the needs and preferences of the end-users (Majeed-Ariss et al., 2015), may be unsuitable for older adolescents and young adults, and do not deliver relevant information in an interactive, developmentally appropriate way.
In the last decade, there has been an exponential rise in the use of digital health technologies and medical devices in healthcare systems. Chatbots, for example, can be incorporated into clinical practice to improve patient outcomes (Xu et al., 2021) and have been reported to provide young people with timely mental health support (Ludin et al., 2022). Given the importance of effective transition for ΥΡ with LTCs and its impact on health outcomes in adult healthcare, there is a need to understand the currently available technologies to support ΥΡ during this process. To our knowledge, no scoping or systematic review was undertaken to synthesise the evidence on supportive use of digital health technologies through transition to adult healthcare for ΥΡ with LTCs, with a focus on TIDM.
This review aimed to synthesise literature on the supportive use of digital health technologies througli transition to adult healthcare for young people with LTCs, with a focus on Τ1DM to inform development of a novel chatbot including components such as avatars and linked videos to help ΥΡ with TIDM gain self-management confidence during transition.
Review aim: To inform development of a chatbot to support successful transition to adult care of YP with TIDM.
Review objectives
1.		To analyse ways in which digital technology has been used to support ΥΡ with LTCs during their transition from paediatric to adult services.
2.		To analyse ways in which digital technology was used to support ΥΡ with TIDM during transition to adult services.
3.		To establish needs, experiences and challenges of ΥΡ with TIDM transitioning from paediatric to adult services.
Method
Our a priori protocol for this scoping review followed the Arksey and O’Malley (2005) framework, and in line with this method, we did not include quality appraisals (Tricco et al., 2018).
Search strategy
An Information Scientist led a search strategy that was developed in MEDLINE, using a combination of standardised indexed search terms and free-text terms that related to key aspects of the research aims; these were then adapted for use in other electronic databases to inform the final search strategy (see Supplementary materials Table S1).
We searched five electronic databases in February 2021: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Wiley), CINAHL (EBSCO), MEDLINE (EBSCO), PsycINFO (ProQuest) and Scopus (Elsevier) to identify relevant studies published in English with no restriction on the publication date and country. Additionally, author, citation and reference lists of key papers were searched to identify relevant primary studies (Schlosser et al., 2006). Grey literature was not sought.
Eligibility criteria
The studies included in this review met the inclusion criteria outlined in Table 1.
Study selection
Identified records were transferred to RefWorks, a web-based reference management software and de-duplication undertaken. Pilot screening of title and abstracts was undertaken by three authors, and full text by two authors to check inter-rater reliability. Three authors independently screened titles and abstracts. Full texts of remaining and potentially eligible records were retrieved and independently assessed for eligibility by six authors with a 10% independent assessment undertaken by one author. To determine the inter-rater reliability, Cohen’s kappa was calculated. Differences in
Table I. Eligibility criteria.
Population: ΥΡ with LTCs (Objective I) OR ΥΡ with TIDM (Objectives 2 and 3) YP were defined as those between I I-25 years
Context: YP in outpatient settings
Intervention: Any digital tools, devices, systems or resources used to support transition of YP with LTCs from paediatric to adult services. (Objectives I and 2)
OR
Concept: Views of YP, their families and healthcare professionals (HCPs) on needs, expectations, experiences, challenges and barriers to transition from paediatric to adult services (Objective 3)
Study type: Primary research only.
Year of publication: Studies published during or after 2015 screening decisions or lack of clarity about eligibility of a paper were reassessed by two authors and a shared consensus reached.
Data extraction
Two authors piloted the data extraction template, and together with another four authors independently conducted data extraction. One author independently undertook a 10% replication. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion among authors. Extracted data included author/s; year of publication; study setting; study population, participant demographics and baseline characteristics; study aims/objectives; details of the intervention and control conditions (where appropriate); study methodology; recruitment and study completion rates; outcomes and timepoint of measurement; data collection and analysis; indicators of acceptability to users; suggested mechanisms of intervention action; YP’s needs, expectations, experiences, challenges, barriers to transitions to adult care; and patient and public involvement (PPI) partners as advisors.
Data analysis and synthesis
We conducted a narrative synthesis of the key findings from included studies by following an iterative approach described by Popay et al. (2006) to identify the themes relevant to our review objectives. We tabulated included studies to enable a preliminary description of the results of included studies. This facilitated identification of digital technologies, an understanding of how the interventions work and themes that describe the transition needs, experiences and challenges of ΥΡ with TIDM.
Results
Study selection
Electronic searches identified a total of 7671 records after removing duplicates. Following title and abstract screening, 7492 studies were excluded. Due to the review focusing on contemporary technology, we applied a publication date restriction and excluded 82 studies published before 2015 (NICE, 2016; OFCOM, 2015). After screening for eligibility at full text stage, 19 studies were included. See Figure 1 for the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram. There was a moderate inter-rater agreement rate of 87.5% for the eight papers that were double screened (Cohen’s kappa = 0.6).
Study characteristics
Included studies were published between 2015 and 2021 and conducted in the United States (η = 10, 53%), Canada (n = 4, 21%), and one study each in Norway, Ireland, Denmark, South Korea and the UK. See Table 2 for a summary of characteristics of included studies. A summary of data extracted is available as Supplementary Material (Tables S2 and S3).
Six studies used quantitative methods including surveys, descriptive and prospective crosssectional designs, retrospective reviews of medical charts and pre-post interventions. Five studies were solely qualitative, and one used a qualitative method embedded in a randomised controlled trial. Three studies employed mixed methods that included a combination of qualitative,

Records identified from:
Databases (n = 11,289)		•	Records removed before screening: Duplicate records removed (n = 3618)	

Records screened at title and	
(n = 7671)		

	»	
Studies included in review (n = 19)

Records excluded (η = 7493)

Records not retrieved
(n = 20)
Studies published before 2015
(n = 82)

Reports excluded: (n = 57)
Digital technology not used for transition (n=11)
Not transition from paediatric to adult care/ no data on transition (n=10)
Focus not on transition needs, experiences, and challenges (n =11)
Not T1DM/ data from patients with
T1DM not identifiable (n=4)
Not in eligible age range/data from participants in eligible age range not identifiable (n=12)
Not primary research (n=8)
Conference abstract (n=1)

Figure I. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram. quantitative approaches and longitudinal prospective cohort studies. Two studies used multimethods comprised of interviews, surveys, a literature reviews, participatory workshops and a co-design group. One study was a pragmatic clinical trial while another was a non-randomised trial.
Only six studies included ΥΡ, families and/or HCPs as ΡΡ1 members of a project advisory group.
Themes
Analysis resulted in three themes; each theme addresses one of the objectives.
Lead author and year study published	Study methodology	Country of study	Age range and LTC of ΥΡ eligible, or HCP category	Sample size	Mean age years (YP)	Study participants female (%)	Patient/families as research project advisors?	
Agarwal et al.
(2017)	Retrospective review of medical charts [Quantitative approaches]	USA	YP (18-25 years) with TIDM	72 YP
Paediatric providers
(PP) 10
Adult providers
(AP) 7	20.2	36 (50)	No	
Albanese-O’Neill et al. (2018)	Multi-method quantitative descriptive study [Quantitative approaches]	USA	YP (18-25 years) with TIDM	20	19.2	16 (80)	No	
Beaudry et al. (2019)	Quantitative descriptive study; Pre and post surveys and workshop [Mixed methods]	USA	YP (14-17 years) with LTCs	13	15.7	Not stated	Yes	
Butalia et al. (2020)	Qualitative descriptive study	Canada	YP with TIDM (I5-25 years) and their parents	YP II Parents 3	Median 18	6 (55)	No	
Butalia et al. (2021)	Pragmatic non-randomised clinical trial [Nonrandomised clinical trial]	Canada	YP (17-18 years) with TIDM	203 YP
Usual care (UC)
102
Intervention (l) 101	UC 18.6
I 18.0	UC 53 (52)
I 48 (48)	Yes	
Colver et al. (2018)	Longitudinal, mixed methods [Mixed methods]	UK	YP (14-18 years) with LTCs and a parent or carer	374	*16.2	155 (41)	No	
Coyne et al. (2016)	Participatory action research [Multi-methods]	Ireland	YP (14-25 years) with LTCs	207
(questionnaires)
21 (interviews)
5 Co-design
4 telephone interviews
12 participatory workshops	Data requested	Co-design 3 (60)	Yes	
Garvey et al. (2017)	[Quantitative approach]	USA	YP (18-29 years) with TIDM	602
PP 303
AP 299	PP 20
AP 24	PP 182 (60)
AP 186 (62)	No	
Gorter et al. (2015)	Mixed-method prospective cohort study [Mixed methods]	Canada	YP in last year of paediatric care with LTCs and disabilities	50	17.9	87 (58)	No	
Table 2. Summary of the 19 studies included in the review.
(continued)
210	Journal of Child Health Care 29(1)

Table 2. (continued)
Lead author and year study published	Study	Patient/families as
Country of Age range and LTC of ΥΡ	Mean age participants	research project
Study methodology	study	eligible, or HCP category	Sample size	years (YP) female (%)	advisors?	
Gray et al. (2021)	A pilot, prospective, non-	USA	YP (16-23 years) with IBD and 36	17.4	18 (50)	Yes
randomised, intervention	their parents
study [Quantitative
approaches]	
Husted et al. (2018)	Qualitative exploratory study Denmark YP (15—23 years) with TIDM 20	18.0	II (55)	Yes
embedded in a 12-month
R C T	
Iversen et al. (2019)
Kim et al. (2019)	Qualitative explorative design	Norway	YP post-transition with TIDM	II	**20.8	5 (46)	No
Descriptive cross-sectional	South	YP (16—24 years) with TIDM	87	19.7	50 (58)	No
study [Quantitative	Korea
approaches]	
Leung et al. (2020)
Lopez et al. (2018)	Qualitative approach	Canada	YP (16-18 years) with TIDM	22	17.5	13 (59)	No
[Multi-methods]	USA	YP (15-21 years) with CHD	402	Median	169 (42)	Yes
16	
Pierce et al. (2017)	Qualitative approach	USA	YP with TIDM recently	10	21.3	7 (70)	No
transitioned 10; parents 9;
PP 10; AP 8; HCPs or
researchers 9	
Polfuss et al. (2015)	A prospective cross-sectional USA	Families with YP with DM (16- 45 (YP/Parent dyad) I 7.0	26 (58)	No
study [Quantitative	20 years) (not yet	Only TIDM
approaches]	transitioned)	included in
analysis	
Ramchandani et al.
(2019)
Weigensberg et al.
(2018)	Qualitative descriptive study	USA	YP with TIDM	(aged 18-	21	23.6	15	(71)	No
29 years)
Non-randomised pilot trial	USA	YP with TIDM	(***aged	19-	51	119.8	15	(56)	No
25 Year)	37	included in	C 19.5	C	I3 (46)
analysis
Intervention 9
Control 28	
*(Colver A., 2022, personal communication), **Haugstvedt A., 2022, personal communication, ***Sequeira et al. (2015).
How digital technology supported transition to adult services for YP with LTCs including TIDM (Objective I). Studies relating to this context reported using a combination of web-based applications (apps). A summary of the types of technologies used to support transition from paediatric to adult healthcare for ΥΡ and types of LTCs supported is available as Supplementary Material Table S4.
Websites contained transition information about diabetes management and technology, mental health, and a breakdown of the process of transition to adult services (Albanese-O’Neill et al., 2018; Beaudry et al., 2019; Butalia et al., 2021; Gorter et al., 2015). Structured approaches like ‘Thinking, Planning and Making’, for example, provided transition information tailored to YP’s needs and preferences to help prepare them for transition to adult healthcare (Coyne et al., 2016).
Online transition mentors, including HCPs, supported ΥΡ by offering advice on their relationships with peers, parents and general life course transitions (Gorter et al., 2015; Gray et al., 2021). Coordinators, who were not medically trained, maintained a transition website and used email, text messaging or telephone communication to answer questions from ΥΡ, notify the healthcare teams of any emergencies, maintain contact with ΥΡ following their transition to adult services and offer psychosocial support (Butalia et al., 2021).
Smartphone or mobile apps were developed to facilitate self-management and aid decision making by providing condition-specific and lifestyle information. Peer support reduced loneliness and increased safety by encouraging ΥΡ to engage with HCPs between outpatient appointments (Husted et al., 2018; Lopez et al., 2018). Apps had functionalities to remind ΥΡ about appointments, assess their treatment adherence, record mood and health status, and support preparation for clinic appointments.
Two studies reported that apps increased engagement of ΥΡ with TIDM and other LTCs, delivered educational content, improved management of the condition and developed peer support to facilitate transition (Beaudiy et al., 2019; Husted et al., 2018). Beaudry et al. tested the feasibility of a text messaging platform to communicate with a healthcare professional about special health needs through the transitions of care; while Husted et al. explored the influence of a smartphone app on self-management by ΥΡ with TIDM that included a Chat Room that offered peer-to-peer interaction. Neither of these studies involved a chatbot with components to help ΥΡ with an LTC such as TIDM gain self-management confidence before and during transition
Educational videos were also used to increase YP’s knowledge and understanding, improve outcomes (e.g. psychological and engagement with clinics) and facilitate peer and social support to reduce the disconnect from their diabetes in a cost-effective way (Albanese-O’Neill et al., 2018).
The intended outcomes of digital health technology use were for a positive effect on YP’s health and support transition. The key to a successful transition process was reported to be engagement of YP, their families, and HCPs in development and use of the technologies (Coyne et al., 2016; Husted et al., 2018; Lopez et al., 2018). However, while most YP had access to smartphones, it was important to have functionality across platforms, and content and functionality needed regular updating to keep ΥΡ engaged.
How digital technology supported transition to adult services for YP with TIDM (Objective 2). Only three studies reported using digital technology to support transition among ΥΡ with TIDM; these studies were in the United States (Albanese-O’Neill et al., 2018), Denmark (Husted et al., 2018) and Canada (Butalia et al., 2021) see Table S4.
YP received TIDM education through a group videoconference (Albanese-O’Neill et al., 2018). There were improvements in diabetes-related self-efficacy and distress and clinic attendance. ΥΡ found the intervention very acceptable and described its potential to improve patient-reported satisfaction, social support and attendance. In addition, using simple, readily accessible digital health technologies like text messaging and emails to enhance transition coordinator intervention, reduced a loss to follow-up in adult services (Butalia et al., 2021). Husted et al. (2018) reported that a mobile health app, ‘Young with Diabetes (YWD)’ promoted self-management through peer support that minimised loneliness and improved YP’s ability to gain skills and knowledge for managing TIDM. As a result, ΥΡ suggested the app be recommended for self-management to ΥΡ who are newly diagnosed with TIDM.
YP with TIDM found these interventions acceptable and successful in improving clinic attendance, social support (Albanese-O’Neill et al., 2018; Butalia et al., 2021) and self-management (Husted et al., 2018).
Transition needs, experiences and challenges of YP with TlDM (Objective 3). Nine studies reported the needs, experiences and challenges of ΥΡ with TIDM from the perspectives of ΥΡ only (Butalia et al., 2021; Colver et al., 2018; Iversen et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2019; Leung et al., 2020; Ramchandani et al., 2019; Weigensberg et al., 2018), YP and their families (Agarwal et al., 2017; Butalia et al., 2020; Pierce et al., 2017; Polfuss et al., 2015), and HCPs (Garvey et al., 2017).
Needs. Individualisation of transition interventions was vital and empowered ΥΡ to regard the transition programme as relevant to their needs (Leung et al., 2020). YP reported their need for interventions to acknowledge how they manage other ‘challenges’ such as college, work, living away from home, and relationships and how these can impact their self-management of diabetes (Pierce et al., 2017; Ramchandani et al., 2019). Support from family and peers is valued. Healthcare transition readiness was positively correlated with family support and self-management competency. YP with a network of support from family and peers felt they could draw on these support systems as they face multiple life changes (Iversen et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2019).
Irrespective of readiness or family and peer support, the supporting service needs to include HCPs ready for transition action. Highly rated interventions have included good communication between paediatric and adult teams (Agarwal et al., 2017; Butalia et al., 2020; Leung et al., 2020; Pierce et al., 2017). Robust transition programmes that include, for example, ‘care navigators’ or ‘intensive patient education curricula’, can also provide support for mental health issues that can impact on self-management abilities (Garvey et al., 2017; Polfuss et al., 2015). In addition, multicomponent interventions are acceptable for ΥΡ and families where interventions include stress reduction and mindfulness techniques; they can positively influence YP’s perceptions of relatedness and continuing support (Weigensberg et al., 2018).
Experiences. YP described the importance of social relationships, including support from groups, peers, friends and family to share their experiences and teach them about TIDM (Butalia et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2019; Leung et al., 2020; Pierce et al., 2017; Polfuss et al., 2015; Weigensberg et al., 2018). Ongoing family involvement in TIDM care improved self-management and healthcare transition readiness (Kim et al., 2019). The ability to find an appropriate balance between YP’s autonomy and parental support and merge the management of TIDM with conflicting demands in adulthood, facilitated successful healthcare transition (Leung et al., 2020; Pierce et al., 2017). Transition support from HCPs was equally important (Garvey et al., 2017; Polfuss et al., 2015), although YP reported remaining in paediatric care because of their emotional attachment to their paediatric HCPs (Garvey et al., 2017).
Some YP received organised and developmentally appropriate interaction and counselling during transition that motivated them to continue in adult care (Agarwal et al., 2017; Colver et al., 2018; Garvey et al., 2017; Weigensberg et al., 2018). The uniqueness and ease of the transition process, compassion of the health care team and continuous involvement of ΥΡ with transition programmes increased the acceptability of the interventions (Agarwal et al., 2017). Additionally, integrative group interventions were highly acceptable and improved psychosocial wellbeing (Weigensberg et al., 2018), and the use of communication technology was helpful in selfmanagement and enhanced clinic attendance among transitioning ΥΡ (Butalia et al., 2021).
Challenges. YP identified barriers to successful transition and adherence to available transition interventions. For example, delays of over 6 months before being able to make the transition were reported (Garvey et al., 2017) and once transition had occurred, coordinators did not provide medical advice, counselling or assessment of psychosocial needs (Butalia et al., 2021). Some YP reported difficulty finding adult healthcare providers who were sufficiently knowledgeable about the challenges facing ΥΡ with TIDM after transition.
There was a lack of satisfaction with the organisation of transition interventions. YP described feeling unprepared and receiving more transition information from parents than HCPs; therefore, existing routes to transfer were perceived as sub-optimal (Butalia et al., 2020; Colver et al., 2018; Iversen et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2019; Leung et al., 2020). After transition, many YP were dissatisfied with the organisation of transition programmes; there were logistical problems including difficulties travelling to clinic, limited medical advice, limited support for psychosocial needs assessment and counselling, and difficulties with healthcare insurance. Fewer adult services offered age-banded clinics, written transition plans, transition managers, or promoted self-efficacy and holistic life-skills training (Colver et al., 2018; Iversen et al., 2019; Polfuss et al., 2015; Ramchandani et al., 2019). Therefore, YP felt unprepared for the differences between paediatric and adult healthcare services and perceived they were not seen as a whole person in adult clinics, consequently, some were unable to maintain continuity of care after transition and disengaged (Iversen et al., 2019).
Discussion
This scoping review addressed objectives 1 and 2 by identifying ways that digital health technology has been used to support the transition of ΥΡ with LTCs, with a focus on Τ1DM, from paediatric to adult care. The review also addressed objective 3 by highlighting the needs, experiences and challenges for ΥΡ with TIDM during transition. All included studies were from high-income countries and recruited ΥΡ with a range of LTCs from paediatric and adult healthcare settings. Few studies were specific to TIDM. Most studies that examined the transition needs, experiences and challenges of ΥΡ with TIDM involved participants aged 15 years and older.
A combination of various digital health technologies was used to support transition of ΥΡ with LTCs, although only three out of the eight studies were specific to TIDM. These technologies used various interfaces and functionalities to engage ΥΡ with LTCs and their families and facilitate transition. The LTC did not influence the type of technology selected to support the transition; hence, the digital health technologies used for ΥΡ witli TIDM were like those used in other LTCs (Albanese-O’Neill et al., 2018; Beaudry et al., 2019; Husted et al., 2018; Lopez et al., 2018).
Functionalities of the digital health technologies identified in this review included interactions to enable peer support, reduce loneliness, improve mental health, enhance self-management and engagement of ΥΡ with adult services. This is in keeping with the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines (NICE, 2021) which recommend the use of digital health technologies, peer support, coaching and mentoring within transition-planning into adult services. The resources also need to enable ΥΡ with LTCs to easily communicate with their HCPs (Department of Health, 2011). Interestingly, this recommendation was an essential part of the technology used within the studies in this review as the digital health technologies were used by ΥΡ to enable access to HCPs between appointments and seek guidance on both health and non-health-related issues. However, previous research cautions that the use of digital communications has the potential to reduce the amount of responsibility ΥΡ take for their health due to easy access to HCPs through digital technology (Griffiths et al., 2017).
In the reviewed studies, ΥΡ expressed a preference for transition interventions that are tailored to their individual needs and recognise other social issues they may encounter such as entering the workplace, living away from home, and relationships and how these can affect self-management of TIDM. As described in a previous study (Hilliard et al., 2014), our findings reflect YP’s need for interventions that consider the distinctive challenges of such a transition period, and which engage YP in meaningful discussions about TIDM in both paediatric and adult health care settings. Therefore, our findings suggest transition programmes, including web-based and digital interventions and interactions, should be co-designed to support self-management around individual needs, empower ΥΡ and improve post-transition experience.
Consistent with our review, a recent study of ΥΡ with sickle cell disease reports participants’ preference for technologically based interventions such as phone calls, text messaging and video chats (Viola et al., 2021). Additionally, transition interventions need to consider the readiness of HCPs for the transition process. Good communication between paediatric and adult healthcare teams accounts for highly acceptable transitions (Agarwal et al., 2017; Butalia et al., 2020; Leung et al., 2020; Pierce et al., 2017). This finding is supported by evidence that highlights the significance of coordinated care between adult and paediatric diabetes teams for successful transition (Hilliard et al., 2014; Iyengar et al., 2019).
Many YP reported that social networks (support from friends, peers and family members) were significant in their transition experiences because these enabled them to share their experiences, teach others about TIDM and improve self-management and transition readiness. In line with this finding, another study with participants aged 24-35 years reported that support from parents, friends and peers witli TIDM, and HCPs, is significant in the management of TIDM (McDowell et al., 2020).
Our review found that having well-organised and developmentally appropriate interactions and counselling during transition was important in motivating ΥΡ to continue in adult care. The empathy and support of the health care team and continuous involvement of YP’s services increased the acceptability of the interventions (Agarwal et al., 2017; Colver et al., 2018; Garvey et al., 2017; Polfuss et al., 2015; Weigensberg et al., 2018). Having supportive HCPs is, therefore, necessary for successful transition for ΥΡ with TIDM (McDowell et al., 2020).
Although this review found that ΥΡ with TIDM reported some positive experiences with their transition, some challenges were also identified. ΥΡ in this review were dissatisfied with the organisation of transition programmes and reported facing issues such as limited medical advice, counselling and psychosocial needs assessment. Many participants felt unprepared for the differences between paediatric and adult services and struggled to maintain continuity of care. This finding is consistent with a study (Michaud et al., 2018) that assessed HCP’s perspectives on transition, recommending that paediatric teams enhance transition readiness in ΥΡ by educating them about the differences between paediatric and adult healthcare services.
Our review identified a range of digital and web-based interventions used to support transition to adult care; however, very few studies specifically focused on ΥΡ with TIDM. Despite a recent review reporting that TIDM was the most common childhood LTC studied (Hart et al., 2019), we found no evidence for the use of digital health technologies for transition of ΥΡ with TIDM in the UK, although Beaudry et al. (2019) reported the use of a chatbot for ΥΡ in paediatric IBD, cardiology and TIDM speciality clinics in the United States and Husted et al. (2018) used a smartphone app for ΥΡ with TIDM in Denmark. Therefore, more research is needed to understand the transition needs and challenges of ΥΡ witli TIDM (Hart et al., 2019; Ramchandani et al., 2019) in the UK, and the use of communication technology to support their transition (Butalia et al., 2020; Coyne et al., 2016; Leung et al., 2020).
Strengths and limitations
This review identified digital health technologies and components used for transition of ΥΡ with TIDM and other LTCs, and the transition needs, experiences and challenges of ΥΡ with TIDM; however, none of those focusing on TIDM matched our criteria for a chatbot, and we found no evidence to inform the development of the avatar and linked videos. Nevertheless, the review results will enable us to address our future research aim: To inform development of a chatbot to support successful transition to adult care of ΥΡ with TIDM. Using a publication date restriction of 2015 increased the strength of this study because it enabled the review of recent evidence. In accordance with scoping review methodology, we did not conduct a quality appraisal of the included studies. This review considered only participants recruited from outpatient healthcare settings, which excludes ΥΡ with TIDM and other LTCs from in-patient settings.
Implications for practice
Healthcare professionals, patients and their families are increasingly turning to health-related technologies to assist them in improving the care that is required in the management of LTCs and to improve outcomes. Despite a large volume of research in this area we found only six of the included studies mentioned involving patients as advisors in the development and design phases of these digital health technologies. Where they were not involved then clearly the opportunities for shared learning between academics, HCPs, ΥΡ and their families had been lost. In clinical practice the paradigm of care is now shifting. The NHS Long-Term Plan (NHS, 2019) states that patients and families should be involved in co-producing the plans for their care. The findings of this review highlight the need to co-design and co-deliver intervention development and evaluation studies from beginning to end witli patients and families, the value of using a broad range of digital health technologies to support transition, and the need to include support for the wider social determinants of healthcare.
Conclusion
This synthesis of primary research has investigated the ways digital health technologies have supported ΥΡ with LTCs during transition. 19 studies, all from high-income countries, were reviewed. Synthesis revealed a need for research focusing on developing interactive, developmentally appropriate, evidence-based resources, to help ΥΡ with LTCs such as TIDM gain self-management confidence before and during transition. A potential such resource is a chatbot, with components such as avatars and linked videos which can be easily accessed and tailored towards the individual needs of the patient. These should be co-produced by families, researchers, and HCPs and where possible be based on family members’ identified needs and preferences and their effectiveness be evaluated.
Acknowledgements
We wish to dedicate this manuscript to our colleague Dr Deborah Harrop who developed the review protocol, undertook the literature search and reviewed literature; sadly, Deb passed away during the manuscript writing process.
Author Notes
For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project is funded by the NIHR [NIHR Invention for Innovation NIHR201629]. This research is supported by Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust and the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Children and Young People MedTech Co-operative (CYP MedTech). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or of the Department of Health and Social Care.
ORCID IDs
Joy Orpin D https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9632-1575
Jacqueline Martin-Kerry https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9299-1360
Janet Horsman © https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6454-642X
Jon Painter © https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1589-4054
Supplemental Material
Supplemental Material for this article is available online.
References
Agarwal S, Raymond JK, Schutta MH, et al. (2017) An adult health care-based pediatric to adult transition program for emerging adults with Type 1 diabetes. The Diabetes Educator 43(1): 87-96.
Albanese-O’Neill Α, Beauchamp G, Thomas Ν, et al. (2018) Transition education for young adults with Type 1 diabetes: pilot feasibility study for a group telehealth intervention. JMIR Diabetes 3(4):el0909.
Archibald SJ and Ashford J (2018) Qualitative investigation of young people’s views of a diabetes transition service. Diabetes Care for Children and Young People 07(2): DCCYP013.
Arksey Η and O’Malley L (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(1): 19-32.
Beaudry J, Consigli A, Clark C, et al. (2019) Getting ready for adult healthcare: designing a chatbot to coach adolescents with special health needs through the transitions of care. Journal of Pediatric Nursing 49: 85-91.
Bronner MB, Peeters MAC, Sattoe JNT, et al. (2020) The impact of Type 1 diabetes on young adults’ health- related quality of life. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 18(1): 1-7.
Butalia S, Crawford SG, McGuire KA, et al. (2021) Improved transition to adult care in youth with Type 1 diabetes: a pragmatic clinical trial. Diabetologia 64(4):758-766. DOI: 10.1007/s00125-020-05368-l.
Butalia S, McGuire KA, Dyjur D, et al. (2020) Youth with diabetes and their parents’ perspectives on transition care from pediatric to adult diabetes care services: A qualitative study. Health Science Reports 3(3): el81.
Campbell F, Biggs Κ, Aldiss SK, et al. (2016) Transition of care for adolescents from paediatric services to adult health services. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 4: CD009794.
Care Quality Commission (2014) From the pond into the sea: children’s transition to adult health services. Children s Transition to Adult Health Services: 1-76.
Colver A, Pearse R, Watson RM, et al. (2018) How well do services for young people with long term conditions deliver features proposed to improve transition? BMC Health Services Research 18(1): 337.
Colver A, Rapley Τ, Parr JR, et al. (2019) Facilitating the transition of young people witli long-term conditions through health services from childhood to adulthood: the Transition research programme. Programme Grants Appl Res 7(4): 1-244.
Colver A (2022) Email to J Horsman July 26, 2022.
Coyne I, Prizeman G, Sheehan A, et al. (2016) An e-healtli intervention to support the transition of young people with long-term illnesses to adult healthcare services: Design and early use. Patient Education and Counseling 99(9): 1496-1504.
Crowley R, Wolfe I, Lock Κ, et al. (2011) Improving the transition between paediatric and adult healthcare: a systematic review. Archives of Disease in Childhood 96(6): 548-553.
Dabelea D, Stafford JM, Mayer-Davis EJ, et al. (2017) Association of Type 1 diabetes vs Type 2 diabetes diagnosed during childhood and adolescence with complications during teenage years and young adulthood. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 317(8): 825-835.
Demirel F, Tepe D, Kara O, et al. (2013) Microvascular complications in adolescents with Type 1 diabetes mellitus. Journal of Clinical Research in Pediatric Endocrinology 5(3): 145-149.
Department of Health (2006) Transition: Getting it Right for Young People. London: Department of Health.
Department of Health (2011) Quality criteria for young people friendly health services. Available at: https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/quality-criteria-for-young-people-friendly-health-services
Department of Health (2012) Long Term Conditions Compendium of Information. 3rd Edition. Leeds.
Department of Health and Social Care (2015) 2010 to 2015 government policy: long term health conditions. In Care DoHaS (ed). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government- policy-long-term-health-conditions.
Dogba MJ, Rauch F, Wong Τ, et al. (2014) From pediatric to adult care: strategic evaluation of a transition program for patients with osteogenesis imperfecta. BMC Health Sendees Research 14: 489.
Garvey KC, Foster NC, Agarwal S, et al. (2017) Health care transition preparation and experiences in a u.s. national sample of young adults with Type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 40(3): 317-324.
Gentles SJ, Lokker C and McKibbon KA (2010) Health information technology to facilitate communication involving health care providers, caregivers, and pediatric patients: a scoping review. Journal of Medical Internet Research 12(2): e22-e22.
Gorter JW, Stewart D, Cohen E, et al. (2015) Are two youth-focused interventions sufficient to empower youth with chronic health conditions in their transition to adult healthcare: A mixed-methods longitudinal prospective cohort study. BMJ Open 5(5): e007553.
Gray WN, Wagoner ST, Schaefer MR, et al. (2021) Transition to adult IBD care: a pilot multi-site, telehealth hybrid intervention. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 46(1): 1-11.
Griffiths F, Bryce C, Cave J, et al. (2017) Timely digital patient-clinician communication in specialist clinical services for young people: a mixed-methods study (The 1YNC study). Journal of Medical Internet Research 19(4): el02.'
Hanna KM and Woodward J (2013) The transition from pediatric to adult diabetes care services. Clinical Nurse Specialist: The Journal for Advanced Nursing Practice 27(3): 132-145.
Hart LC, Patel-Nguyen SV, Merkley MG, et al. (2019) An evidence map for interventions addressing transition from pediatric to adult care: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Journal of Pediatrie Nursing 48: 18-34.
Haugstvedt A (2022) Personal communication to J Horsman. August 4, 2022.
Hilliard ME, Perlus JG, Clark LM, et al. (2014) Perspectives from before and after the pediatric to adult care transition: a mixed-methods study in Type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 37(2): 346-354.
Husted GR, Weis J, Teilmann G, et al. (2018) Exploring the influence of a smartphone app (young with diabetes) on young people’s self-management: qualitative study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 6(2): e43.
Iversen E, Kolltveit B-CH, Hernar I, et al. (2019) Transition from paediatric to adult care: a qualitative study of the experiences of young adults with Type 1 diabetes. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 33(3): 723-730.
Iyengar J, Thomas IH and Soleimanpour SA (2019) Transition from pediatric to adult care in emerging adults with Type 1 diabetes: a blueprint for effective receivership. Clinical Diabetes and Endocrinology 5: 3.
Karges B, Rosenbauer J, Holterhus P-M, et al. (2015) Hospital admission for diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia in 31,330 young patients with Type 1 diabetes. European Journal of Endocrinology ’ 173(3): 341-350.
Kim G, Choi EK, Kim HS, et al. (2019) Healthcare transition readiness, family support, and self-management competency in korean emerging adults with Type 1 diabetes mellitus. Journal of Pediatric Nursing 48: el-e7.
Leavey G, McGrellis S, Forbes Τ, et al. (2019) Improving mental health pathways and care for adolescents in transition to adult services (IMPACT): a retrospective case note review of social and clinical detenninants of transition. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 54(8): 955-963.
Leung JMWS, Tang TS, Lim CE, et al. (2020) The four I’s of adolescent transition in Type 1 diabetes care: a qualitative study. Diabetic Medicine : A Journal of the British Diabetic Association 38(7): el4443. DOI: 10.1111/dme.14443.
Lopez KN, O’Connor M, King J, et al. (2018) Improving transitions of care for young adults with congenital heart disease: mobile app development using formative research. JMIR Formative Research 2(2): el6.
Lotstein DS, Seid M, Klingensmith G, et al. (2013) Transition from pediatric to adult care for youth diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes in adolescence. Pediatrics 131(4): el062-el070.
Ludin Ν, Holt-Quick C, Hopkins S, et al. (2022) Chatbot to support young people during the covid-19 pandemic in new zealand: evaluation of the real-world rollout of an open trial. J Med Internet Res 24(11): e38743.
Majeed-Ariss R, Baildam E, Campbell M, et al. (2015) Apps and adolescents: a systematic review of adolescents’ use of mobile phone and tablet apps that support personal management of their chronic or longterm physical conditions. Journal of Medical Internet Research 17(12): 1-16.
McDowell ME, Litchman ML and Guo JW (2020) The transition experiences of adolescents with Type 1 diabetes from paediatric to adult care providers. Child: Care, Health and Development 46(6): 692-702.
McManus MA, Pollack LR, Cooley WC, et al. (2013) Current status of transition preparation among youth with special needs in the United States. Pediatrics 131(6): 1090-1097.
Michaud S, Dasgupta Κ, Bell L, et al. (2018) Adult care providers’ perspectives on the transition to adult care for emerging adults with Type 1 diabetes: a cross-sectional survey. Diabetic Medicine 35(7): 846-854.
Miller KM, Foster NC, Beck RW, et al. (2015) Current state of Type 1 diabetes treatment in the U.S.: updated data from the tld exchange clinic registry. Diabetes Care 38(6): 971-978.
Morris AD, Boyle DIR, McMahon AD, et al. (1997) Adherence to insulin treatment, glycaemic control, and ketoacidosis in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The DARTS/MEMO collaboration, diabetes audit and research in Tayside Scotland, medicines monitoring unit. Lancet 350(9090): 1505-1510.
NHS (2019) The NHS long term plan. Available at: https://www.longtermplan.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/ 2019/08/nhs-long-term-plan-version-1.2.pdf
NHS England (2016). Diabetes Transition Service Specification: January 2016. In England Ν (ed).
NICE (2016) Transition from children s to adults’ services for young people using health or social care services, nice guideline NG43. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
NICE (2021) Transition planning for young people moving from children’s to adult services. Available at: https://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/transition-from-childrens-to-adults-services
OFCOM (2015) The Communications Market Report 2015. Available at: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research- and-data/multi-sector-research/cmr/cmrl5
Pierce JS, Aroian Κ, Schifano Ε, et al. (2017) Health care transition for young adults with Type 1 diabetes: Stakeholder engagement for defining optimal outcomes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 42(9): 970-982.
Polfuss M, Babler Ε, Bush LE, et al. (2015) Family perspectives of components of a diabetes transition program. Journal of Pediatric Nursing 30(5): 748-756.
Popay J, Roberts Η, Sowden A, et al. (2006) Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A Product from the ESRC Methods Programme 1(1): b92.
Ramchandani Ν, Way Ν, Melkus GDE, et al. (2019) Challenges to diabetes self-management in emerging adults with Type 1 diabetes. The Diabetes Educator 45(5): 484-497.
Rasmussen Β, Dunning Ρ and O’Connell B (2007) Young women with diabetes: using internet communication to create stability during life tansitions. Journal of Clinical Nursing 16(3A): 17-24.
Rasmussen Β, Ward G, Jenkins A, et al. (2011) Young adults’ management of Type 1 diabetes during life transitions. Journal of Clinical Nursing 20(13-14): 1981-1992.
Schlosser RW, Wendt O, Bhavnani S, et al. (2006) Use of infonnation-seeking strategies for developing systematic reviews and engaging in evidence-based practice: the application of traditional and comprehensive Pearl Growing: a review. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 41(5): 567-582.
Sequeira PA, Pyatak ΕΑ, Weigensberg MJ, et al. (2015) Let’s empower and prepare (leap): evaluation of a structured transition program for young adults with Type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 38(8): 1412-1419.
Sheehan AM, While ΑΕ and Coyne I (2015) The experiences and impact of transition from child to adult healthcare services for young people with Type 1 diabetes: a systematic review. Diabetic Medicine: A Journal of the British Diabetic Association 32(4): 440-458.
Singh SP, Paul M, Ford Τ, et al. (2010) Process, outcome and experience of transition from child to adult mental healthcare: multiperspective study. The British Journal of Psychiatry : The Journal of Mental Science 197(4): 305-312.
Stinson J, Kohut SA, Spiegel L, et al. (2014) A systematic review of transition readiness and transfer satisfaction measures for adolescents with chronic illness. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health 26(2): 159-174.
Sutcliffe P, Martin S, Sturt J, et al. (2011) Systematic review of communication technologies to promote access and engagement of young people with diabetes into healthcare. BMC Endocrine Disorders 11: 1.
Toomey SL, Chien AT, Elliott MN, et al. (2013) Disparities in unmet need for care coordination: the national survey of children’s health. Pediatrics 131(2): 217-224.
Tricco AC, Lillie Ε, Zarin W, et al. (2018) PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine 169(7): 467-473.
Viola AS, Levonyan-Radloff K, Drachtman R, et al. (2021) Understanding barriers to transition from pediatric to adult care among young adults with sickle cell disease to develop a transition mentor program. Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology 9(1): 68-81.
Weigensberg MJ, Vigen C, Sequeira Ρ, et al. (2018) Diabetes empowerment council: integrative pilot intervention for transitioning young adults with Type 1 diabetes. Global Advances in Health and Medicine 7: 2164956118761808.
Wilson C and Stock J (2019) The impact of living with long-term conditions in young adulthood on mental healtli and identity: What can help? Health Expectations 22(5): 1111-1121.
Xu L, Sanders L, Li Κ, et al. (2021) Chatbot for health care and oncology applications using artificial intelligence and machine learning: systematic review. JMIR Cancer 7(4): e27850. DOI: 10.2196/27850.
Appendix
Abbreviations
Apps Applications
CF Cystic fibrosis
CHD Congenital heart disease
DKA Diabetic ketoacidosis
HCPs Healthcare professionals
IBD Inflammatory bowel disease
LTC Long-term or chronic condition
NHS National Health Service (UK)
NICE National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
PPI Patient and public involvement
PRISMA Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses
T1DM Type 1 diabetes mellitus
YP Young person/people
5 University of Leicester, Leicester, UK