Transition models of care for type 1 diabetes : a systematic review

Background: Managing the care regimen for Type 1 Diabetes is challenging for emerging adults, as they take on greater responsibility for self-management. A diverse range of models of care have been implemented to improve safety and quality of care during transition between paediatric and adult services. However, evidence about acceptability and effectiveness of these is limited. Our aim was to synthesise the evidence for transition models and their components, examine the health related and psychosocial outcomes, and to identify determinants associated with the implementation of person-centred models of transition care.

Method: We searched Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and Scopus. Peer reviewed empirical studies that focused on T1D models of care published from 2010 to 2021 in English, reporting experimental, qualitative, mixed methods, and observational studies were included.

Results: Fourteen studies reported on health and psychosocial outcomes, and engagement with healthcare. Three key models of care emerged: structured transition education programs (6 studies), multidisciplinary team transition support (5 studies) and telehealth/virtual care (3 studies). Compared with usual practice, three of the six structured transition education programs led to improvements in maintenance of glycaemic control, psychological well-being, and engagement with health services. Four MDT transition care models reported improved health outcomes, and improved engagement with health services, however, three studies reported no benefit. Reduced diabetes related stress and increased patient satisfaction were reported by two studies, but three reported no benefit. Telehealth and virtual group appointments improved adherence to self-management and reduced diabetes distress but did not change health outcomes.

Conclusions: Although some health and psychosocial benefits are reported, the results were mixed. No studies reported on T1D transition model implementation outcomes such as acceptability, adoption, and appropriateness among clinicians or managers implementing these models. This gap needs to be addressed to support future adoption of successful models.

© The Author(s) 2023.

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.