Managing the multiple demands of a chronic condition whilst negotiating the developmental tasks of adolescence and young adulthood is a process that is neither well described nor understood, particularly in relation to providing developmentally appropriate health care for young people. The importance of this issue is starting to be reflected within the literature, and although research into models of service delivery is emerging, a lack of user involvement in service development is apparent. This qualitative, user involvement study aimed to describe and understand the considered opinions of 19 young adults with diabetes who were receiving secondary care services about the provision of diabetes services for young people. The findings, gathered using semistructured interview and focus group methods, have potentially wide-reaching implications across primary and secondary health care, and across agencies providing services to children and young people, in terms of facilitating a person's transition through adolescence and into young adult life. Participants suggested key issues to address when developing services for young people, including staff consistency, civility, clinic structures which help a person navigate the health care system, provision of age-specific information, and support in relation to a range of health, emotional, social and developmental needs. Health care professionals can help young people to meet the expectations upon them as autonomous service users by modelling appropriate relationships, helping them to acquire skills and knowledge, and overcome barriers to them becoming active participants in their health care and achieving social participation in a fuller sense. It is somewhat arbitrary to delineate between adolescence and young adulthood in terms of age alone, but in this paper, 'adolescence' refers to the period between 11 and 15 years of age, and 'young adulthood' between 16 and 25 years of age. The phrase 'young people' will also be used to refer to people between 11 and 25 years.

BackgroundMost evidence about what works in transitional care comes from small studies in single clinical specialties. We tested the hypothesis that exposures to nine recommended features of transitional healthcare were associated with better outcomes for young people with long-term conditions during transition from child-centred to adult-oriented health services.MethodsThis is a longitudinal, observational cohort study in UK secondary care including 374 young people, aged 14–18.9 years at recruitment, with type 1 diabetes (n = 150), cerebral palsy (n = 106) or autism spectrum disorder with an associated mental health problem (n = 118). All were pre-transfer and without significant learning disability. We approached all young people attending five paediatric diabetes centres, all young people with autism spectrum disorder attending four mental health centres, and randomly selected young people from two population-based cerebral palsy registers. Participants received four home research visits, 1 year apart and 274 participants (73%) completed follow-up.Outcome measures were Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale, Mind the Gap Scale (satisfaction with services), Rotterdam Transition Profile (Participation) and Autonomy in Appointments.ResultsExposure to recommended features was 61% for ‘coordinated team’, 53% for ‘age-banded clinic’, 48% for ‘holistic life-skills training’, 42% for ‘promotion of health self-efficacy’, 40% for ‘meeting the adult team before transfer’, 34% for ‘appropriate parent involvement’ and less than 30% for ‘written transition plan’, ‘key worker’ and ‘transition manager for clinical team’.Three features were strongly associated with improved outcomes. (1) ‘Appropriate parent involvement’, example association with Wellbeing (b = 4.5, 95% CI 2.0–7.0, p = 0.001); (2) ‘Promotion of health self-efficacy’, example association with Satisfaction with Services (b = − 0.5, 95% CI – 0.9 to – 0.2, p = 0.006); (3) ‘Meeting the adult team before transfer’, example associations with Participation (arranging services and aids) (odds ratio 5.2, 95% CI 2.1–12.8, p < 0.001) and with Autonomy in Appointments (average 1.7 points higher, 95% CI 0.8–2.6, p < 0.001).There was slightly less recruitment of participants from areas with greater socioeconomic deprivation, though not with respect to family composition.ConclusionsThree features of transitional care were associated with improved outcomes. Results are likely to be generalisable because participants had three very different conditions, attending services at many UK sites. Results are relevant for clinicians as well as for commissioners and managers of health services. The challenge of introducing these three features across child and adult healthcare services, and the effects of doing so, should be assessed.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-018-1102-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patient and public involvement in research includes non‐academics working with researchers, on activities from consultative tasks, to joint working, and on user‐led initiatives. Health and social care funding bodies require involvement in research projects. A current debate focuses on a perceived lack of empirical “proof” to demonstrate the impact of involvement upon the quality of research. It is also argued that the working relationships between researchers and those becoming involved need to be understood more fully. These areas are beginning to be reported upon but there are few studies of young people involved in health research. This study describes the experiences of adult academics and young people, working together on a large‐scale, UK health research programme. Using qualitative interview and focus group methods, the aim was to explore participants’ perceptions about the process and outcomes of their work together. The importance of cyclical, dynamic and flexible approaches is suggested. Enablers include having clear mechanisms for negotiation and facilitation, stakeholders having a vision of “the art of the possible,” and centrally, opportunities for face‐to‐face working. What is needed is a continuing discourse about the challenges and benefits of working with young people, as distinct from younger children and adults, understanding the value of this work, without young people having to somehow “prove” themselves. Involvement relies on complex social processes. This work supports the view that an improved understanding of how key processes are enabled, as well as what involvement achieves, is now needed.