Data extraction
| General characteristics: What are the general characteristics of resources which describe options to improve transitions? | |
| Year of publication | |
| Country: If multinational use corresponding author affiliation | |
| Condition: Targeted neurodevelopmental condition | |
| Definition of transition: What did 'transition' mean to the authors of the paper? | |
| Age of transition: What ages did ‘transition’ mean to the authors of the paper? | |
| Question 1: Tools/strategies: What tools/strategies to improve the transitions have been described? This section is to capture key ideas (if commentary) or the intervention trialled (if implemented) to cover a wide range of options which may aid in transitions. | |
| Summary of tools/strategies (Free text) A broad summary about tools or intervention | |
| How do the tools/strategies cluster together into similar approaches (eg, education, paperwork, clinics, new staff)? | |
| People Which groups of people need to provide time or resources for this tool/strategy to work? (Choose all that apply) | |
| Setting Does the tool/strategy require a clinical environment to be implemented? (Yes/No) Would this tool/strategy need things at a clinic? (eg, are there specific assessments done as part of this or could you imagine this happening at a community centre?) | |
| Question 2: Patient-centredness: Were tools/strategies collaboratively designed and implemented with the diverse patients who experience these transitions? | |
| Were the tools or strategies collaboratively designed (codesigned) with those impacted by neurodevelopmental disorders? (yes/no) If so, how? (free text) | |
| Were ethnicity or cultural aspects of care considered in the design and implementation of these tools or strategies? (yes/no) If so, how? (free text) | |
| Question 3: Implementation and evaluation: In cases where these tools or strategies are implemented, how effective were they in aiding transition? For part A, ‘implementation’ we will include only the subset of papers describing tools/strategies which were tried by at least a single participant For part B, ‘evaluation’, we will include only the subset which were both implemented (had at least on participant) and evaluated (included a comparison) This section will not include and evaluation of bias or quality (as in a systematic review), but rather help to understand author insights and provide some guidance for options worth pursuing or not | |
| Part A (Only studies for which the tool/strategy was implemented) | Study participants Who is involved as participants? (select all that apply) |
| Participant age If patients are the participants, what is the age range of these youth? (minimum to maximum in years) | |
| Participant number Use those who completed the study, if more than one group, include all | |
| Authors reflections about tool/strategy (free text) what worked, what did not, and what insights did they offer for improving services | |
| Part B (Only studies for which the tool/strategy was evaluated) | Was there a pre-post comparison (yes/no) |
| Outcome #1 (pre-post): If yes, what was the outcome measure? (free text) Did the pre-post analysis with this outcome suggest the tool/strategy was effective? (yes, no, inconclusive) | |
| Allow for recording of up to five different pre/post outcomes | |
| Was there a parallel comparison? (yes/no) | |
| Outcome #1 (parallel): If yes, what was the comparison arm? (free text) If yes, what was the outcome measure? (free text) Did the parallel analysis with this outcome suggest the tool/strategy was effective? (yes, no, inconclusive) | |
| Allow for recording of up to five different parallel comparison outcomes | |
| Was there an evaluation without a comparator? (yes/no) | |
| If yes, what was the outcome measure? (free text) Did the evaluation suggest the tool/strategy was effective? (yes, no, inconclusive) | |
| Allow for recording of up to five different outcomes without comparators | |