MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2149227673 · doi:10.1542/peds.113.3.e197

Prevalence and Correlates of Successful Transfer From Pediatric to Adult Health Care Among a Cohort of Young Adults With Complex Congenital Heart Defects

2004· article· en· W2149227673 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Graham J. Reid, M. Jane Irvine, Brian W. McCrindle, Renée Sananes, Paul G. Ritvo, Samuel C. Siu, Gary D. Webb

Notice bibliographique

RevuePEDIATRICS · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Établissements canadiensHospital for Sick ChildrenYork UniversitySickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesHospital for Sick Children
Mots-clésMedicineCohortAttendancePediatricsYoung adultCohort studyConfidence intervalHealth careGerontologyInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: More than 85% of children born today with chronic medical conditions will live to adulthood, and many should transfer from pediatric to adult health care. The numbers of adults with congenital heart defects (CHDs) are increasing rapidly. Current guidelines recommend that just over half of adult CHD patients should be seen every 12 to 24 months by a cardiologist with specific CHD expertise at a regional CHD center, because they are at risk for serious complications (eg, reoperation and/or arrhythmias) and premature mortality. The present study aimed to determine the percent of young adults with CHDs who successfully transferred from pediatric to adult care and examine correlates of successful transfer. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with prevalence data from an entire cohort. SETTING AND PATIENTS: All patients (n = 360) aged 19 to 21 years with complex CHDs who, according to current practice guidelines, should be seen annually at a specialized adult CHD center were identified from the database of the cardiology program at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada, a pediatric tertiary care center. Of these patients, 234 completed measures about health beliefs, health behaviors, and medical care since age 18 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: All 15 specialized adult CHD centers in Canada formed the Canadian Adult Congenital Heart (CACH) Network. Attendance for at least 1 follow-up appointment at a CACH center before the age of 22 years was ascertained for all eligible patients. Attendance at a CACH center provides a clear criterion for successful transfer. RESULTS: In the total cohort, 47% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 42-52) had transferred successfully to adult care. There was no difference in rates of successful transfer between patients consenting to complete questionnaires (48%) and those who declined (47%). More than one quarter (27%) of the patients reported having had no cardiac appointments since 18 years. In multivariate analyses of the entire cohort, successful transfer was significantly associated with more pediatric cardiovascular surgeries (odds ratio [OR]: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.40-4.37), older age at last visit to the Hospital for Sick Children (OR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.10-1.51), and documented recommendations in the medical chart for follow-up at a CACH center. In multivariate analyses of the patients completing questionnaires, successful transfer was significantly related to documented recommendations and patient beliefs that adult CHD care should be at a CACH center (OR: 3.64; 95% CI: 1.34-9.90). Comorbid conditions (OR: 3.13; 95% CI: 1.13-8.67), not using substances (eg, binge drinking; OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.07-0.50), using dental antibiotic prophylaxis (OR: 4.23; 95% CI: 1.48-12.06), and attending cardiac appointments without parents or siblings (OR: 6.59; 95% CI: 1.61-27.00) also correlated with successful transfer. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to document the percent of young adults with a chronic illness who successfully transfer to adult care in a timely manner. Patients were from an entire birth cohort from the largest pediatric cardiac center in Canada, and outcome data were obtained on all eligible patients. Similar data should be obtained for other chronic illnesses. There is need for considerable improvement in the numbers of young adults with CHDs who successfully transfer to adult care. At-risk adolescents with CHDs should begin the transition process before their teens, should be educated in the importance of antibiotic prophylaxis, should be contacted if a follow-up appointment is missed, and should be directed to a specific CHD cardiologist or program, with the planned timing being stated explicitly. Adult care needs to be discussed in the pediatric setting, and patients must acquire appropriate beliefs about adult care well before transfer. Developmentally appropriate, staged discussions involving the patient, with and without parents, throughout adolescence may help patients acquire these beliefs and an understanding of the need for ongoing care. Improved continuity of pediatric care and provision of clear details for adult follow-up might be sufficient to cause substantive improvements in successful transfer. An understanding of why patients drop out of pediatric care may be needed to improve the continuity of care throughout adolescence. Almost one quarter of the patients believed adult care should be somewhere other than at a CACH center despite opposite recommendations. For these patients, a single discussion of adult care during the final pediatric visit may be too little, too late. In addition to earlier discussions, multiple mechanisms such as referral letters and transition clinics are needed. Similarly, patients engaging in multiple risky or poor health behaviors such as substance use may need more intensive programs to make substantial changes in these behaviors, which hopefully would lead to successful transfer. Overall, these data support the view that transition to adult care (a planned process of discussing and preparing for transfer to an adult health center) is important and should begin well before patients are transferred. The future health of adults with chronic conditions may depend on our ability to make these changes.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,035
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,071

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,243
Écart entre enseignants0,235 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations492
Publié2004
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePEDIATRICSMême sujetCongenital Heart Disease StudiesTravaux en français237 207