# Adaptation and validation of the On Your Own Feet – Transition Experiences Scale evaluating transitions to adult services among adolescent mental health service users in Europe

Suzanne E Gerritsen, Larissa S van Bodegom, Mathilde M Overbeek, Anneloes van Staa, Athanasios Maras, Therese Amj van Amelsvoort, Dieter Wolke, Giovanni de Girolamo, Tomislav Franić, Fiona Mcnicholas, et al.

► To cite this version:

Suzanne E Gerritsen, Larissa S van Bodegom, Mathilde M Overbeek, Anneloes van Staa, Athanasios Maras, et al.

HAL Id: hal-04941216

https://hal.science/hal-04941216v1

Submitted on 12 Mar 2025

**HAL** is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Adaptation and validation of the On Your Own Feet – Transition Experiences Scale evaluating transitions to adult services among adolescent mental health service users in Europe

Suzanne E Gerritsen<sup>a</sup>, Larissa S van Bodegom<sup>b,a</sup>, Mathilde M Overbeek<sup>b,c,d</sup>, AnneLoes van Staa<sup>e</sup>, Athanasios Maras<sup>b,d</sup>, Therese AMJ van Amelsvoort<sup>f,g</sup>, Dieter Wolke<sup>h</sup>, Giovanni de Girolamo<sup>j</sup>, Tomislav Franić<sup>j,k</sup>, Fiona McNicholas<sup>l,m</sup>, Moli Paul<sup>i,n</sup>, Diane Purper-Ouakil<sup>o,p</sup>, Paramala Santosh<sup>q,r,s</sup>, Ulrike ME Schulze<sup>t</sup>, Swaran P Singh<sup>i,n</sup>, Cathy Street<sup>i</sup>, Sabine Tremmery<sup>u</sup>, Helena Tuomainen<sup>i</sup>, Gwendolyn C Dieleman<sup>a,*</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

### Keywords:

Child and adolescent mental health services

Adult mental health services

Adolescents

Young adults

Transition

## ABSTRACT

**Purpose:** Experiences of young people transitioning from Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) to Adult Mental Health Services (AMHS) have mostly been investigated qualitatively. This study adapts and validates the *On Your Own Feet – Transition Experiences Scale (OYOF-TES)* in a sample of CAMHS users in Europe and describes young people's and parents' experiences with transition and end of care at CAMHS.

**Methods:** The OYOF-TES was adapted to a mental health setting and translated. An End Of Care (OYOF-EOC) version (self- and parent-report) was developed. A total of 457 young people and 383 parents completed an OYOF-TES or OYOF-EOC. Psychometric properties and descriptives are presented.

**Results:** The Cronbach's alphas of the OYOF-TES and OYOF-EOC parent/self-report ranged from 0.92 to 0.94. The two-factor structure was confirmed. The mean overall satisfaction reported by young people was 6.15 (0–10;

**Abbreviations:** CAMHS, child and adolescent mental health service(s); AMHS, adult mental health service(s); OYOF-TES, On Your Own Feet – Transition Experiences Scale; OYOF-EOC, On Your Own Feet – End of Care.

* Corresponding author at: Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology (KP-2), Erasmus Medical Center, P.O. Box 2060, 3000 CB, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

E-mail address: g.dieleman@erasmusmc.nl (G.C. Dieleman).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2024.116071

Received 11 October 2023; Received in revised form 27 June 2024; Accepted 29 June 2024

Available online 19 July 2024

0165-1781/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Yulius Mental Health Organization, Dordrecht, the Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> Clinical Child and Family Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote><sup>d</sup> ARQ National Psychotrauma Centre, Diemen, the Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote><sup>e</sup> Research Center Innovations in Care, Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Rotterdam, the Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote><sup>f</sup> University of Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote><sup>g</sup> Mondriaan Mental Health Care, Heerlen, the Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote><sup>h</sup> Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom</footnote>

<footnote><sup>i</sup> Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom</footnote>

<footnote><sup>j</sup> IRCCS Instituto Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy</footnote>

<footnote><sup>k</sup> School of Medicine, University of Split, Split, Croatia</footnote>

<footnote><sup>l</sup> School of Medicine & Medical Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Republic of Ireland</footnote>

<footnote><sup>m</sup> Lucena CAMHS, SJOG, Dublin, Republic of Ireland</footnote>

<footnote><sup>n</sup> Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust, Coventry, United Kingdom</footnote>

<footnote><sup>o</sup> Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montpellier, Saint Eloi Hospital, Montpellier, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>p</sup> INSERM, CESP U1018, PsyDev, University Paris Saclay, UVSQ, Versailles, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>q</sup> Department of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom</footnote>

<footnote><sup>r</sup> Centre for Interventional Paediatric Psychopharmacology and Rare Diseases, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom</footnote>

<footnote><sup>s</sup> HealthTracker Ltd, Kent, United Kingdom</footnote>

<footnote><sup>t</sup> Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry/Psychotherapy, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany</footnote>

<footnote><sup>u</sup> Department of Neurosciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium</footnote>
$SD=2.92$) for transition and 7.14 (0–10; $SD=2.37$) for care ending. However, 26.7%-36.4% of young people were unsatisfied.

**Discussion:** The OYOF-TES and OYOF-EOC can be used reliably in mental healthcare settings to capture young people's and parents' transition experiences. The majority of young people and parents was satisfied with the process of transition and care ending, yet a third of young people had negative experiences.

## Implications and contributions

The questionnaires OYOF-TES and OYOF-EOC can be reliably used to capture CAMHS users' experiences with transition and end of care. Respectively, twenty-seven and thirty-six percent of young people have negative experiences with care ending or transition. Our findings provide input to help clinicians improve young people's and parents' experiences.

# 1. Introduction

Young people needing continued specialist mental health treatment after reaching the service's upper age limit (usually between the ages of 16 and 19) of their child and adolescent mental healthcare service (CAMHS) need to transition to an adult mental healthcare service (AMHS). To date, experiences of young people with transition from CAMHS to AMHS have mostly been investigated by retrospective (Islam et al., 2016; Perera et al., 2017; Pontoni et al., 2021; Stagi et al., 2015) and qualitative studies (Appleton et al., 2020; Broad et al., 2017; Clev-erley et al., 2020a; Hill et al., 2019; Scholz et al., 2019; Wilson et al., 2015). Such reports highlight that most young people and parents feel insufficiently prepared for this transition (Appleton et al., 2020; Clev-erley et al., 2020a; Scholz et al., 2019; Wilson et al., 2015) and experi-ence difficulties in the alignment between CAMHS and AMHS (Scholz et al., 2019).

While providing valuable insights into young people's and parents' experiences with transition from CAMHS to AMHS, retrospective and qualitative studies have methodological limitations, such as the limited numbers of young people and parents who can be included. Further-more, some studies only included young people who transitioned to AMHS (Hill et al., 2019), whereas the majority of young people do not transition to AMHS (Gerritsen et al., 2022b). To our knowledge, no in-struments have been developed to quantitatively assess the experiences of young people and parents with transition in a mental healthcare setting.

The current study aims to adapt and validate the On Your Own Feet – Transition Experiences Scale (van Staa and Sattoe, 2014) (OYOF-TES), a validated instrument originally designed for assessing experiences with transition of those with chronic physical conditions, in a sample of child and adolescent mental healthcare service users in Europe (Gerritsen et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2017). Additionally, we developed a version of the instrument to assess experiences of young people whose care ended (the On Your Own Feet – End of Care, OYOF-EOC). We provide psy-chometric properties of these instruments and descriptive statistics to illustrate young people's and parents' experiences and satisfaction with transition from CAMHS to AMHS.

# 2. Methods

## 2.1. Study design and participants

The current study is part of the MILESTONE longitudinal cohort study, in which 39 CAMHS from eight European countries participated (Belgium, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom). The study design (Singh et al., 2017) and partic-ipants (Gerritsen et al., 2021) have been described previously. CAMHS

users aged up to one year younger or up to three months older than the upper age limit of their CAMHS between October 2015 and December 2016 were eligible for participation in the study. Eligible young people were regular CAMHS users with a mental disorder, had no indication of intellectual impairment and were (expected to be) able to complete questionnaires (see Fig. 1 for all inclusion criteria). Participants were assessed at baseline and follow-up at 9, 15, and 24 months.

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Ac-cording to national laws and medical ethical committee regulations, country-specific consent procedures were followed for young people, parents and clinicians. The UK National Research Ethics Service Com-mittee West Midlands – South Birmingham (15/WM/0052) and ethics boards in participating countries approved the study protocol (ISRCTN83240263; NCT03013595).

## 2.2. Procedure

At each time point, a two-hour appointment (face-to-face or by phone) was scheduled with young people and their parents for an interview to assess socio-demographic information and the completion of a range of online questionnaires (on the HealthTracker™ platform). Clinical information on the young person was obtained through their clinician or by accessing medical files.

Before each follow-up assessment, the research assistant contacted the young person, parents and the CAMHS clinician, to inquire whether the young person was still at CAMHS, had transitioned to AMHS or another service or was no longer using mental healthcare services at that time. The questionnaires administered at the following assessment were selected based on this information. If the young person had transitioned to AMHS or had moved from CAMHS to another mental health service, the young person and their parents were requested to complete the OYOF-TES (van Staa and Sattoe, 2014) at the first assessment following the end of care at CAMHS. If the young person had left CAMHS and was no longer using mental health services, the young person and their parents were requested to complete the OYOF-EOC.

## 2.3. Measures

A complete overview of the instruments used in the MILESTONE cohort study at each time-point was provided elsewhere (Gerritsen et al., 2021). More detailed information on the instruments used in this study is provided in the supplementary materials.

### 2.3.1. On Your Own Feet Transition Experiences Scale (OYOF-TES)

The original version of the OYOF-TES (originally the On Your Own Feet Transfer Experiences Scale) was developed in Dutch and validated by Van Staa and Sattoe (2014) in a sample of 1039 adolescents who had undergone treatment in the Erasmus Medical Centre for a broad range of chronic physical health problems. The parent- and self-report version consisted of 18 items rated on a five-point Likert scale (ranging from 'strongly disagree' (1) to 'strongly agree' (5)) divided into an 'alignment and collaboration'-scale and a 'preparation'-scale. Overall satisfaction with transition was determined with the question 'How satisfied are you with the overall process of your transfer to adult care on a scale ranging from 0 to 10'.

In this study, the OYOF-TES was adapted for administration in a mental healthcare setting (see Supplementary Table 1). An 'end-of-care' version of the OYOF was developed to assess the experiences with care
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

(caption on next page)
**Fig. 1.** CONSORT Flow Diagram of participants.

Note. Not all participating young people, parents/carers and clinicians completed (all) measures at the different time-points. See Table 1 for proportions of missing data per measure.

¹ The upper age limit of the participating CAMHS was 18 years for two-thirds of services, or applied flexibly, varying between 16 and 19 years of age.

² Young people who stayed in CAMHS were not administered an OYOF-TES or OYOF-EOC.

³ Without completing an OYOF-TES or OYOF-EOC, 6 young people withdrew after completing an OYOF-TES or OYOF-EOC. The data of these 6 young people was included in this study.

ending of young people who did not transition to AMHS (OYOF-EOC; see Supplementary Table 2).

### 2.3.2. Socio-demographic characteristics

Information on gender was registered during recruitment. The highest level of parental education was assessed in the socio-demographic interview and categorized as (1) primary or secondary/ vocational or (2) university.

### 2.3.3. Clinical information sample

At baseline, clinical classifications as registered in the young person's medical file were provided by clinicians and collapsed to three broad categories: emotional disorders; behavioural/ neuro-developmental disorders and severe mental illnesses.

At each time-point, self-reported internalising and externalising problems in the past six months were assessed with the Youth Self-Report (Achenbach and Rescorla, 2001) or Adult Self-Report (Achenbach and Rescorla, 2003) scale of the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (YSR if <18 years; ASR if ≥ 18 years).

## 2.4. Statistical analyses

A non-response analysis was conducted by comparing young people who completed an OYOF-TES or OYOF-EOC with young people who left CAMHS and had not completed the OYOF-TES or OYOF-EOC, based on baseline gender, parental educational level, clinical classifications, and self-reported emotional/behavioural problems using Chi-square tests (categorical variables) and t-tests (continuous variables).

To assess the reliability of the OYOF-TES and the OYOF-EOC (both self-report and parent-report) Cronbach's alphas were calculated and presented. To describe construct validity, minimum residual, and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were applied. The CFA was carried out using the 'sem' package in R. This package was used to specify a path diagram describing the relationships between the items and the factors. The summary statistics were then evaluated and the model fit was determined.

Descriptive statistics were used to describe the study sample, young people's and parents' experiences with alignment between CAMHS and AMHS, preparation for transition, appropriateness of end of care, preparation for end of care, and overall satisfaction with either the transition to AMHS or end of care. In addition, sensitivity analyses were conducted to address validity with respect to gender, specific groups of mental health disorders (i.e., severe mental illness, emotional disorder, behavioural/neurodevelopmental disorder), and levels of emotional and behavioural problems.

To investigate which specific experiences contributed to overall satisfaction, bivariate correlations (Pearson's r) between overall satisfaction and the individual items were calculated (Mukaka, 2012) (see Supplementary Materials).

All statistical analyses were performed in R version 3.6.3 (R Core Team, 2020) using observed data only.

# 3. Results

## 3.1. Development and adaptation of the OYOF-TES and OYOF-EOC (self-report and parent-report)

The self-report and parent-report versions of the OYOF-TES and

OYOF-EOC are included in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2. Minor amendments were made to the wording of the items of the original OYOF-TES (van Staa and Sattoe, 2014) and several items were added to adapt the instruments for administration in a mental healthcare setting based on feedback from transition experts, including young people with experience in mental health services transitions, and the NICE guidelines on transition (Singh et al., 2016).

To assess the experiences with ending care in CAMHS of young people who did not transition to AMHS an additional version of the OYOF was developed: an 'end-of-care' version (OYOF-EOC), assessing appropriateness of end of care (subscale 1) and preparation for end of care (subscale 2).

The process of development and adaptation of these measures is described in more detail in the supplementary materials.

## 3.2. Sample

A total of 763 participants participated in a baseline assessment (see Fig. 1 for the flowchart of the study and Supplementary Table 3). A complete description of the demographic and clinical characteristics of the MILESTONE cohort is provided elsewhere (Gerritsen et al., 2021). Over a period of two years and three follow-up assessments 165 (21.6%) young people completed the OYOF-TES and 292 (38.3%) young people completed the OYOF-EOC. A total of 306 (40.1%) young people did not complete an OYOF-TES or OYOF-EOC. For 14.7% of these 306 (n = 43), this was due to them staying in CAMHS. We compared the 457 young people that completed the OYOF-TES (n = 165) or OYOF-EOC (n = 292) to the 263 young people who left CAMHS but did not complete either OYOF-scale (see Table 1). Young people who completed an OYOF-scale were less often classified with a 'severe mental illness' (χ2=11.924, df=1, p < .001) than those who did not complete any OYOF-scales, no other differences were found.

A total of 140 (18.3%) parents completed an OYOF-TES and 243

<caption>**Table 1**</caption>

Baseline characteristics of young people who left CAMHS and completed an OYOF-TES or OYOF-EOC and young people who had not completed either.

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>young people who<br>completed an<br>OYOF-TES/OYOF-<br>EOC</th><th>young people who<br>did not complete an<br>OYOF-TES/OYOF-<br>EOC*</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Gender</td><td>(n = 457)</td><td>(n = 263)</td><td>.190</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>174 (38.1)</td><td>114 (43.3)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>283 (61.9)</td><td>149 (56.7)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Parental educational level</td><td></td><td></td><td>.104</td></tr><tr><td>University</td><td>223 (48.8)</td><td>120 (45.6)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Primary or secondary/<br>vocational</td><td>136 (29.8)</td><td>52 (19.8)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>98 (21.4)</td><td>91 (34.6)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Self-reported emotional/<br>behavioural problems</td><td>57.64 (11.02)</td><td>59.28 (12.72)</td><td>.119</td></tr><tr><td>Clinical classification</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Severe mental illness</td><td>43 (9.4)</td><td>49 (18.6)</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Behavioural/<br>neurodevelopmental<br>disorder</td><td>284 (62.1)</td><td>147 (55.9)</td><td>.891</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional disorder</td><td>151 (33.0)</td><td>89 (33.8)</td><td>.117</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>* Young people who stayed in CAMHS and therefore did not complete an OYOF-TES or OYOF-EOC were not included.</footnote>
(31.8%) completed an OYOF-EOC. Twenty-five parents completed an OYOF-TES or an OYOF-EOC although their child did not.

## 3.3. Psychometric properties

### 3.3.1. Reliability

The internal consistency of the items of the OYOF-TES self-report was 0.93 (alignment subscale: α=0.90; preparation subscale α=0.88). These results are similar to those reported by Van Staa and Sattoe (2014). The Cronbach's alpha for the parent-report version was 0.94 (alignment subscale: α=0.89; preparation subscale: α=0.92). The Cronbach's alphas for the self- and parent-reported OYOF-EOC versions were 0.92 (appropriateness subscale: α=0.77; preparation subscale: α=0.92) and 0.94 (appropriateness subscale: α=0.89; preparation subscale: α=0.94) respectively.

### 3.3.2. Construct validity

A minimum residual factor-analysis was applied on all versions of the OYOF-TES to assess whether the two-factor structure established by Van Staa and Sattoe (2014) applied to the MILESTONE data as well. Inspection of scree plots indicated that a two-factor structure was optimal. Additionally, a CFA was conducted. A two-factor structure with the factors 'alignment' and 'preparation' for the OYOF-TES versions and the factors 'appropriateness' and 'preparation' for the OYOF-EOC versions was confirmed. The factor loadings derived from the CFA are presented in Tables 2 and 3 and supplementary tables 1 and 2 for each version separately.

## 3.4. Young people's and parents' satisfaction and experiences with the transition to AMHS

Measuring satisfaction with healthcare is acknowledged to be complex (Crow et al., 2002) with some researchers viewing a score of 3 or less on a 10-point scale as indicative of dissatisfaction whereas others would utilize the halfway point (score of 5) as the demarcation between satisfaction or dissatisfaction. In this paper, scores of 6 and above were interpreted as indicating satisfaction and those below 6 indicating dissatisfaction. Fig. 2a shows the distribution of overall satisfaction scores with transition to AMHS of young people and parents. The mean overall transition satisfaction score reported by young people was 6.15 (range 0–10; SD=2.92) and 6.13 (SD=2.74) reported by parents. More than one in three young people and parents were unsatisfied with their transition: 60 (36.4%) young people and 53 (37.9%) parents rated the transition less than a ‘6’. Similar proportions of young people (40.0%, n = 66) and parents (37.9%, n = 53) were very satisfied (they rated their transition as an ‘8’ or better). The sensitivity analyses to address validity of the overall mean transition satisfaction score with respect to gender, specific groups of mental health disorders, and levels of emotional and behavioural problems are presented in Supplementary Table 4.

The responses to the different items of the OYOF-TES, reflecting the young person's experiences with transition, are described in Table 2. The correlations with overall transition satisfaction are presented per item as well. Young people's responses to the statements measuring different aspects of alignment between CAMHS and AMHS are mixed. Overall, young people seemed positive regarding the care they received at AMHS. Young people were less positive regarding alignment between CAMHS and AMHS: only 30–40% reported having experienced good collaboration, similarities in the way of working, and knowing what to expect at AMHS. With regard to preparation, experiences were mixed: roughly two in three young people stated the transition announcement was well-timed and did not come as a surprise, whereas only half felt the timing of transition was right, that they were well prepared, and that they had a say in whether they would transition and when.

The responses of parents, presented in Supplementary Table 1, were similar to the responses of young people. However, most parents did not feel prepared for how their role, responsibility, and involvement would

<table><caption>**Table 2**
Young people's responses to OYOF-TES (n = 165).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Item mean<sup>1</sup><br>(SD)</th><th>Agree<sup>2</sup><br>(%)</th><th>Factor<br>loading</th><th>Correlation<br>with transition<br>satisfaction<sup>3</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Subscale A: Alignment between CAMHS and AMHS</strong><br>(mean = 36.85 (9.14); Cronbach's alpha = 0.90)</td></tr><tr><td>1) I can manage well on my own during consultations, also without my parents</td><td>4.17<br>(1.06)</td><td>80.6</td><td>.270</td><td>.10</td></tr><tr><td>2) I have confidence in my adult care provider</td><td>3.77<br>(1.07)</td><td>70.9</td><td>.842</td><td>.53</td></tr><tr><td>3) I am happy with the care I receive in the adult care setting</td><td>3.64<br>(1.11)</td><td>64.8</td><td>.882</td><td>.58</td></tr><tr><td>4) My new care provider was well informed about me and my condition</td><td>3.53<br>(1.18)</td><td>58.8</td><td>.767</td><td>.62</td></tr><tr><td>5) I was taken care of very well in the adult care setting</td><td>3.67<br>(1.15)</td><td>63.0</td><td>.911</td><td>.60</td></tr><tr><td>6) Treatment recommendations in the adult care setting are similar to those I used to receive in child care</td><td>3.35<br>(1.18)</td><td>50.3</td><td>.690</td><td>.54</td></tr><tr><td>7) There was good collaboration between child care and adult care</td><td>3.10<br>(1.26)</td><td>40.0</td><td>.693</td><td>.61</td></tr><tr><td>8) The way of working and dealing with patients in adult care is similar to what I was used to in child care</td><td>3.10<br>(1.20)</td><td>40.0</td><td>.649</td><td>.48</td></tr><tr><td>9) When I first met my adult care provider, I knew exactly what was expected of me and what I could expect from him / her</td><td>3.06<br>(1.11)</td><td>35.8</td><td>.598</td><td>.49</td></tr><tr><td>10) I don't really experience many differences between child care and adult care</td><td>2.88<br>(1.19)</td><td>30.3</td><td>.607</td><td>.44</td></tr><tr><td>11) Before transition I had already met my new care providers</td><td>2.58<br>(1.48)</td><td>32.1</td><td>.363</td><td>.28</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Subscale B: Preparation for transition</strong><br>(mean = 32.44 (8.37); Cronbach's alpha = 0.88)</td></tr><tr><td>1) Transition to adult care was announced timely and did not come as a surprise</td><td>3.60<br>(1.27)</td><td>64.8</td><td>.576</td><td>.35</td></tr><tr><td>2) My parents were ready to transition to adult care</td><td>3.62<br>(1.18)</td><td>61.8</td><td>.679</td><td>.40</td></tr><tr><td>3) I was ready to transition to adult care</td><td>3.47<br>(1.20)</td><td>57.0</td><td>.728</td><td>.47</td></tr><tr><td>4) The timing of transition was just about right</td><td>3.38<br>(1.20)</td><td>50.3</td><td>.739</td><td>.56</td></tr><tr><td>5) I was well prepared for transition to adult care</td><td>3.29<br>(1.22)</td><td>46.7</td><td>.878</td><td>.67</td></tr><tr><td>6) I received enough information about transition to adult care</td><td>3.27<br>(1.14)</td><td>49.7</td><td>.808</td><td>.67</td></tr><tr><td>7) I had a say in the timing of transition</td><td>3.12<br>(1.24)</td><td>45.5</td><td>.684</td><td>.43</td></tr><tr><td>8) I helped prepare a written transition plan before transition</td><td>2.16<br>(1.10)</td><td>12.1</td><td>.398</td><td>.34</td></tr><tr><td>9) I had a say in where I would transition to</td><td>3.13<br>(1.26)</td><td>46.1</td><td>.544</td><td>.40</td></tr><tr><td>10) I had a say in whether my care would end or not</td><td>3.41<br>(1.20)</td><td>53.9</td><td>.445</td><td>.22</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="1">¹4-point Likert scale (1=no, definitely not; 2=no, probably not; 3=yes, probably; 4=yes certainly).</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Only those young adults who scored 'agree' and 'strongly agree'.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Pearson's correlation coefficient r (all p<.001). Correlations were considered 'very high' if Pearson's r was between 0.90 and 1.00, 'high' between 0.70 and</footnote>
0.90, 'moderate' between 0.50 and 0.70, 'low' between 0.30 to 0.50 and 'negligible' between 0.00 to 0.30 (23).

<table><caption>**Table 3**
Young people's responses to OYOF-EOC (n = 292).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Item mean<sup>1</sup> (SD)</th><th>Agree<sup>2</sup> (%)</th><th>Factor loading</th><th>Correlation with transition satisfaction<sup>3</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Subscale A: Appropriateness of end of care</strong><br>(mean = 18.93 (3.85); Cronbach's alpha = 0.80)</td></tr><tr><td>1) I can manage well on my own without the help of mental healthcare specialists</td><td>3.86 (0.98)</td><td>67.5</td><td>.746</td><td>.44</td></tr><tr><td>2) I feel that the things I learned in CAMHS are sufficient to help me now that I'm an adult</td><td>3.59 (1.10)</td><td>59.9</td><td>.741</td><td>.62</td></tr><tr><td>3) I am glad that I did not have to go onto adult mental health services (AMHS)</td><td>3.63 (1.15)</td><td>57.2</td><td>.656</td><td>.46</td></tr><tr><td>4) I know where I can go for help if I need it</td><td>3.76 (1.17)</td><td>71.2</td><td>.667</td><td>.50</td></tr><tr><td>5) I know that I can go to my GP for help if I need it</td><td>3.82 (1.09)</td><td>72.6</td><td>.530</td><td>.32</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Subscale B: Preparation for end of care</strong><br>(mean = 29.75 (7.25); Cronbach's alpha = 0.94)</td></tr><tr><td>1) The end of care was announced on time and did not come as a surprise</td><td>3.81 (1.17)</td><td>71.6</td><td>.709</td><td>.51</td></tr><tr><td>2) My parents were ready for my care to end</td><td>3.78 (1.15)</td><td>68.8</td><td>.719</td><td>.60</td></tr><tr><td>3) I was ready to for my care to end</td><td>3.65 (1.12)</td><td>63.4</td><td>.892</td><td>.51</td></tr><tr><td>4) The timing of the end of my care was just about right</td><td>3.67 (1.12)</td><td>64.7</td><td>.846</td><td>.63</td></tr><tr><td>5) I was well prepared for my care to end</td><td>3.66 (1.15)</td><td>65.4</td><td>.933</td><td>.66</td></tr><tr><td>6) I received enough information about the end of my care</td><td>3.59 (1.19)</td><td>64.0</td><td>.849</td><td>.69</td></tr><tr><td>7) I had a say in when my care ended</td><td>3.59 (1.30)</td><td>61.0</td><td>.772</td><td>.60</td></tr><tr><td>8) I had a say in whether my care would end or not</td><td>3.61 (1.31)</td><td>60.6</td><td>.766</td><td>.57</td></tr></tbody></table>

change.

### 3.5. Young people's and parents' satisfaction and experiences with the end of care

Young people were quite satisfied with their care ending (mean overall satisfaction score=6.92, range 0–10; SD=2.64), as were their parents (mean satisfaction score=6.87; SD=2.87; see Fig. 2b). A total of 78 (26.7%) young people and 71 parents (29.2%) were unsatisfied (scored below 6). About half of the young people (n = 150, 51.4%) and parents (n = 128, 52.7%) were very satisfied (scored ≥8). The sensitivity analyses to address validity of the overall mean end of care satisfaction score with respect to gender, specific groups of mental health disorders, and levels of emotional and behavioural problems are presented in

### Supplementary Table 4.

Table 3 describes young people's experiences with end of care. Most young people indicated they knew how to manage on their own and where to go for help if needed. Similar to the responses to the OYOF-TES, two in three young people and parents who completed the OYOF-EOC stated they were ready to end their care at CAMHS. Young people who completed the OYOF-EOC indicated that the timing of end of care was right, they felt prepared, and it was announced in a timely manner. Furthermore, almost two in three young people indicated having had a say in whether and when their care would end.

The responses of parents to the OYOF-EOC (see Supplementary Table 2) were similar to the responses of young people, with the exception that most parents felt they were not being involved in the decision whether the care would end or not.

### 3.6. The relationship between transition experiences and overall satisfaction

All correlations between transition experiences and overall satisfaction were significant at p<.001. Several items had a moderate to strong association (r≥.6) with young people's overall satisfaction (see Tables 2 and 3 and supplementary tables 1 and 2): the new care provider being informed about the young person and their condition, having been taken good care of in the adult setting, good collaboration between CAMHS and AMHS, having been well prepared for the transition to AMHS, and having received enough information about the transition. For parents, confidence in the young person's AMHS team and happiness with received care were important, as was the readiness and preparedness to transition, whether they received enough information about the transition, their preparedness for how their role would change and whether they were still informed about important decisions regarding their child's condition and treatment at AMHS.

The experiences with the care at CAMHS ending that were associated most strongly with the overall satisfaction of young people were: having learned helpful things in CAMHS, the young person's parents' readiness for care to end according to the young person (the correlation with their own readiness was lower), the timing of the care ending, having been prepared for their care to end, having received enough information, and having had a say in when the care would end.

For parents, almost all the experiences relating to the preparation for the end of care were significantly associated with their satisfaction. Additionally, parents who were glad their child did not have to go to AMHS were more satisfied.

## 4. Discussion

This study describes the adaptation, translation and initial validation of the OYOF-TES and OYOF-EOC within a sample of CAMHS users in Europe. The reliability and construct validity of all measures were good and comparable to the original measure (van Staa and Sattoe, 2014). The mean satisfaction with transition reported by young people in this study was also comparable to the satisfaction with transition in a population of adolescents with chronic physical conditions (van Staa and Sattoe, 2014). Additionally, this study describes young people's and parents' transition experiences. Thirty-six percent of young people were unsatisfied with transition, whereas 27% of young people were unsatisfied with care ending. Parents were slightly more unsatisfied, but overall satisfaction of young people and parents were comparable.

### 4.1. Experiences with end of care at CAMHS

Our finding that young people were relatively satisfied with care at CAMHS ending, and more satisfied overall than young people who transitioned to AMHS, was unexpected considering the scientific literature suggesting many young people 'fall in a [care] gap' (Appleton et al., 2019). However, it is in line with more recent findings that most

<footnote n="1">¹4-point Likert scale (1=no, definitely not; 2=no, probably not; 3=yes, probably; 4=yes certainly).</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Only those young adults who scored 'agree' and 'strongly agree'.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Pearson's correlation coefficient r (all p<.001). Correlations were considered 'very high' if Pearson's r was between 0.90 and 1.00, 'high' between 0.70 and 0.90, 'moderate' between 0.50 and 0.70, 'low' between 0.30 to 0.50 and 'negligible' between 0.00 to 0.30 (23).</footnote>
a:

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

b:

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Young People's and Parents' Overall Satisfaction with Transition to AMHS and End of Care.</figcaption></figure>

young people who leave CAMHS, and do not transition to AMHS, have relatively good outcomes (Gerritsen et al., 2022b). This may be because CAMHS users who experience an end of care, have relatively few mental health problems as they reach the upper age limit of their CAMHS and often do not need continued treatment (Gerritsen et al., 2021, 2022b). This group is likely to be satisfied with care at CAMHS ending and may be overrepresented in the MILESTONE cohort (see ‘strengths and limitations’), which may have resulted in an overestimation of the satisfaction with end of care. Problems with transition may also remain hidden by CAMHS clinicians’ willingness to continue treatment of CAMHS users beyond the upper age limit, considering the lack of

capacity and waiting lists at AMHS.

## 4.2. Experiences with transition or end of care in relation to satisfaction

The majority of young people and parents rated the process to transition or end care as ‘satisfactory’ (indicated by a score of 6 or higher). Nevertheless, 27%–36% of young people were unsatisfied with the way in which care ended at CAMHS or the transition to AMHS. Our findings are not completely in line with findings from qualitative studies (Appleton et al., 2020; Broad et al., 2017; Cleverley et al., 2020a; Hill et al., 2019; Scholz et al., 2019; Wilson et al., 2015), which describe
young people's and parents' experiences that are more negative. An analysis of young people's and parents' experiences on an item-level provides potential explanations for the discrepancies between our findings and the findings from previous studies, but also reveals some contradictory findings.

Previous studies (Cleverley et al., 2020b; Gerritsen et al., 2022a) emphasize the importance of involving young people and parents in the decision-making process regarding transition. In our study, having had a say in whether, when or where they would transition had a low correlation with young people's satisfaction, suggesting this may not be as important overall. Previous research has also shown that the timing of transition can feel abrupt and arbitrary (Broad et al., 2017), yet two in three young people in our study reported that transition was announced timely and did not come as a surprise. In line with findings from previous qualitative studies (Cleverley et al., 2020a), the importance of being prepared and receiving enough information was reflected in the moderate correlation with overall satisfaction.

Roughly one in three young people felt their new care providers were not well informed and this seemed to affect their overall satisfaction of transition as well, which is in line with previous research indicating young people and parents experience a lack of coordination and communication between CAMHS and AMHS (Scholz et al., 2019). Only 40-44% of young people and parents indicated that CAMHS and AMHS collaborated well, which has also been reported in previous qualitative research (Scholz et al., 2019).

Approximately one in three of young people whose care ended expressed regret with ending specialist mental healthcare, whereas actively having a say in continuation of care significantly impacted young people's satisfaction with care ending (more so than for those who transitioned). Considering that young people who report a need for ongoing treatment as they reach the upper age limit of their CAMHS are more likely to experience increasing mental health problems in the transition period (Gerritsen et al., 2022b), this is a worrying finding. Fortunately, most young people whose care ended indicated they did not know where to go in case they needed help.

Finally, our study confirms previous findings that parental involvement in treatment decisions is much less common in AMHS than in CAMHS (Hill et al., 2019), yet the low correlation with transition satisfaction suggests this may not lead to a lot of frustration and powerlessness for most parents. Perhaps some experience a sense of relief as their responsibility decreases (Hill et al., 2019).

### 4.3. Strengths and limitations

The current study has several strengths: the quantitative approach allowed us to describe the experiences of a sample of 457 young people in CAMHS who transitioned to AMHS or whose care ended as they reached their service's upper age limit. Because young people were recruited in eight countries, our findings are not limited to a mental health system specific to one country.

However, a bias may have resulted in an overestimation of the satisfaction with transition: selection bias potentially affects the representativeness of the cohort (discussed in more detail elsewhere, Gerritsen et al., 2022a), it is not unlikely that participation in the MILESTONE study may have sensitised CAMHS clinicians to several aspects of transition (i.e. informing young people on transition), and non-response analyses showed that young people who completed an OYOF-TES or OYOF-EOC were less likely to have a clinical classification of a severe mental illness. Our findings therefore need to be interpreted with caution and require replication before informing transition policy.

Because of the proportion of missing data on the OYOF-TES and other clinical and service-use characteristics, we could not study associations between these characteristics and young people's experiences. This should be considered a limitation as well, and offers a suggestion for further research within this population.

Lastly, the present study was conducted as part of the MILESTONE

cohort study. In this context, we were able to test the applicability of the OYOF-TES and -EOC. However, because the study was not designed as a validation study of the OYOF, we were unable to test other aspects of validity, such as test-retest, convergent, and discriminant validity.

## 5. Conclusions and recommendations

Our study shows that the OYOF-TES and OYOF-EOC can be reliably used in mental healthcare settings to capture transition experiences of young people and their parents and provides clinicians and managers with an easy to use questionnaire to evaluate transitional care in their mental health services. The majority of young people and parents was satisfied with the process of transition and care ending, yet a third of young people had negative experiences. Our findings suggest that adequate preparation for transition or discharge, informing the new care provider, preparing parents for their changing role, increasing independence of young people and, in general, improving collaboration between CAMHS and AMHS may improve young people's experiences with transition. Although replication of our findings is important, they provide insight into important aspects of how to improve transitional care for young people and their parents.

### CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Suzanne E Gerritsen:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. **Larissa S van Bodegom:** Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. **Mathilde M Overbeek:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Supervision, Conceptualization. **AnneLoes van Staa:** Writing – original draft, Supervision. **Athanasios Maras:** Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. **Therese AMJ van Amelsvoort:** Supervision, Project administration. **Dieter Wolke:** Supervision, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. **Giovanni de Girolamo:** Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. **Tomislav Franic:** Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. **Fiona McNicholas:** Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. **Moli Paul:** Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. **Diane Purper-Ouakil:** Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. **Paramala Santosh:** Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. **Ulrike ME Schulze:** Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. **Swaran P Singh:** Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. **Cathy Street:** Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. **Sabine Tremmery:** Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. **Helena Tuomainen:** Supervision, Project administration, Conceptualization. **Gwendolyn C Dieleman:** Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Supervision, Resources, Project administration, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Formal analysis, Conceptualization.

### Declaration of competing interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

### Acknowledgements

We thank all the young people, parents and clinicians for participating in the MILESTONE study. We would also like to extend our thanks to the teams within the collaborating CAMHS and AMHS. We extend a special thanks to the young project advisors and the members of the MILESTONE Scientific Clinical and Ethical Advisory Board. We thank the European Commission's 7th Framework Programme for funding the MILESTONE study. We also thank everyone who was temporarily part of the wider MILESTONE team, as well as all the students who contributed
to the data-collection. Finally, we thank all members of the wider
MILESTONE consortium for their contribution.

Supplementary materials

Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2024.116071.

References

Achenbach, T., Rescorla, L., 2001. Manual For the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles. University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families, Burlington, VT.

Achenbach, T., Rescorla, L., 2003. Manual For the ASEBA Adult Forms & Profiles. University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families, Burlington, VT.

Appleton, R., Connell, C., Fairclough, E., Tuomainen, H., Singh, S.P., 2019. Outcomes of young people who reach the transition boundary of child and adolescent mental health services: a systematic review. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry.

Appleton, R., Elahi, F., Tuomainen, H., Canaway, A., Singh, S.P., 2020. I'm just a long history of people rejecting referrals" experiences of young people who fell through the gap between child and adult mental health services. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry.

Broad, K.L., Sandhu, V.K., Sunderji, N., Charach, A., 2017. Youth experiences of transition from child mental health services to adult mental health services: a qualitative thematic synthesis. BMC. Psychiatry 17, 380.

Cleverley, K., Lenters, L., McCann, E., 2020a. Objectively terrifying": a qualitative study of youth's experiences of transitions out of child and adolescent mental health services at age 18. BMC. Psychiatry 20, 147.

Cleverley, K., Rowland, E., Bennett, K., Jeffs, L., Gore, D., 2020b. Identifying core components and indicators of successful transitions from child to adult mental health services: a scoping review. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 29, 107–121.

Crow, R., Gage, H., Hampson, S., Hart, J., Kimber, A., Storey, L., Thomas, H., 2002. The measurement of satisfaction with healthcare: implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature. Health Technol. Assess. 6.

Gerritsen, S.E., Maras, A., Bodegom van, L.S., Overbeek, M.M., Verhulst, F.C., Wolke, D., Appleton, R., Bertani, A., Cataldo, M.G., Conti, P., Da Fonseca, D., Davidović, N., Dodig-Ćurković, K., Ferrari, C., Fiori, F., Franić, T., Gatherer, C., de Girolamo, G., Heaney, N., Hendrick, G., Kolozsvari, A., Levi, F.M., Lievesley, K., Madan, J., Martinelli, O., Mastroianni, M., Maurice, V., McNicholas, F., O'Hara, L., Paul, M., Purper-Ouakil, D., Roeck de, V., Russet, F., Saam, M.C., Sagar-Ouriaghli, I., Santosh, P.J., Sartor, A., Schandrin, A., Schulze, U.M.E., Signorini, G., Singh, S.P., Singh, J., Street, C., Tah, T., Tanase, E., Tremmery, S., Tuffrey, A., Tuomainen, H., Amelsvoort van, T.A.M.J., Wilson, A., Walker, L., Dieleman, G.C., consortium, M., 2021. Cohort profile: demographic and clinical characteristics of the MILESTONE longitudinal cohort of young people approaching the upper age limit of their child mental health care service in Europe. BMJ Open. 11.

Gerritsen, S.E., van Bodegom, L.S., Dieleman, G.C., Overbeek, M.M., Verhulst, F.C., Wolke, D., Rizopoulos, D., Appleton, R., van Amelsvoort, T.A.M.J., Bodier Rethore, C., Bonnet-Brilhault, F., Charvin, I., Da Fonseca, D., Davidović, N., Dodig-Ćurković, K., Ferrari, A., Fiori, F., Franić, T., Gatherer, C., de Girolamo, G., Heaney, N., Hendrickx, G., Jardri, R., Kolozsvari, A., Lida-Pulik, H., Lievesley, K., Madan, J., Mastroianni, M., Maurice, V., McNicholas, F., Nacinovich, R., Parenti, A.,

Paul, M., Purper-Ouakil, D., Rivolta, L., de Roeck, V., Russet, F., Saam, M.C., Sagar-Ouriaghli, I., Santosh, P.J., Sartor, A., Schulze, U.M.E., Scocco, P., Signorini, G., Singh, S.P., Singh, J., Speranza, M., Stagi, P., Stagni, P., Street, C., Tah, P., Tanase, E., Tremmery, S., Tuffrey, A., Tuomainen, H., Walker, L., Wilson, A., Maras, A., consortium, M., 2022a. Demographic, Clinical and Service-use Characteristics related to the Clinician's Recommendation to Transition from Child to Adult Mental Health Services. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol.

Gerritsen, S.E., van Bodegom, L.S., Overbeek, M.M., Maras, A., Verhulst, F.C., Wolke, D., Rizopoulos, D., de Girolamo, G., Franić, T., Madan, J., McNicholas, F., Paul, M., Purper-Ouakil, D., Santosh, P.J., Schulze, U.M.E., Singh, S.P., Street, C., Tremmery, S., Tuomainen, H., Dieleman, G.C., 2022b. Leaving child and adolescent mental health services in the MILESTONE cohort: a longitudinal cohort study on young people's mental health indicators, care pathways, and outcomes in Europe. Lancet Psychiatry 9, 944–956.

Hill, A., Wilde, S., Tickle, A., 2019. Review: transition from Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) to Adult Mental Health Services (AMHS): a meta-synthesis of parental and professional perspectives. Child Adolesc. Ment. Health 24, 295–306.

Islam, Z., Ford, T., Kramer, T., Paul, M., Parsons, H., Harley, K., Weaver, T., McLaren, S., Singh, S.P., 2016. Mind how you cross the gap! Outcomes for young people who failed to make the transition from child to adult services: the TRACK study. BJPsych. Bull. 40, 142–148.

Mukaka, M.M., 2012. Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med. J. 24, 69–71.

Perera, R.H., Rogers, S.L., Edwards, S., Hudman, P., Malone, C., 2017. Determinants of Transition From Child and Adolescent to Adult Mental Health Services: a Western Australian Pilot Study. Aust. Psychol. 52, 184–190.

Pontoni, G., Di Pietro, E., Neri, T., Mattei, G., Longo, F., Neviani, V., Neri, G., Stagi, P., Caffo, E., Starace, F., Galeazzi, G.M., 2021. Factors associated with the transition of adolescent inpatients from an intensive residential ward to adult mental health services. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry.

R Core Team, 2020. R: A language and Environment For Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

Scholz, B., Battams, S., Platania-Phung, C., Happell, B., 2019. Transitioning from Adolescent to Adult Mental Health Services: an Integrative Literature Review. Issues Ment. Health Nurs. 40, 97–111.

Singh, S.P., Anderson, B., Liabo, K., Ganeshamoorthy, T., guideline, c., 2016. Supporting young people in their transition to adults' services: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ 353, i2225.

Singh, S.P., Tuomainen, H., Girolamo, G., Maras, A., Santosh, P., McNicholas, F., Schulze, U., Purper-Ouakil, D., Tremmery, S., Franic, T., Madan, J., Paul, M., Verhulst, F.C., Dieleman, G.C., Warwick, J., Wolke, D., Street, C., Daffern, C., Tah, P., Griffin, J., Canaway, A., Signorini, G., Gerritsen, S., Adams, L., O'Hara, L., Aslan, S., Russet, F., Davidovic, N., Tuffrey, A., Wilson, A., Gatherer, C., Walker, L., Consortium, M., 2017. Protocol for a cohort study of adolescent mental health service users with a nested cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of managed transition in improving transitions from child to adult mental health services (the MILESTONE study). BMJ Open. 7, e016055.

Stagi, P., Galeotti, S., Mimmi, S., Starace, F., Castagnini, A.C., 2015. Continuity of care from child and adolescent to adult mental health services: evidence from a regional survey in Northern Italy. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 24, 1535–1541.

van Staa, A., Sattoe, J.N., 2014. Young adults' experiences and satisfaction with the transfer of care. J. Adolesc. Health 55, 796–803.

Wilson, A., Tuffrey, A., McKenzie, C., Street, C., 2015. After the flood: young people's perspectives on transition. Lancet Psychiatry 2, 376–378.