03 Best practice for transition from paediatric complex pain care: A scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Many adolescent and young adults (AYA) experiencing chronic pain often continue to have pain in adulthood and thus must make the transition from paediatric care to adult care. Persistent pain and disability due to chronic pain throughout young adulthood can disrupt the attainment of important developmental milestones at transition to adulthood that impact quality of life. Inadequate transition planning may be associated with poor health outcomes and increased health utilization. However, only few studies have described the specific transition protocol from paediatric to adult care that AYA with chronic pain must make. Objectives To improve understanding of transitional care needs during transition planning and after transition (quality of care), this paper will determine known barriers to successful transition from paediatric chronic pain care to adult care as well as factors associated with successful transition from paediatric multidisciplinary paediatric chronic pain care, identify patient care needs at transition from paediatric chronic pain care, and finally describe the best practice (existing frameworks) to support youth at transition from paediatric chronic pain care. Design/Methods This scoping review used previously published Arksey and O’Malley framework and followed the PRISMA guidelines. It sought to answer the following questions. What are the barriers to successful transition and what factors are associated with successful transition from paediatric chronic pain care to adult care? What are patient care needs at transition from paediatric chronic pain care? How can we best support youth at transition from interdisciplinary paediatric chronic pain care? A literature search was carried on Ovid Medline and 12 studies (11 research articles and 1 dissertation) published from 2015 to 2022 were included in the review, with only one theoretical transition framework that may be useful in the Canadian healthcare setting. Results In this scoping review, interpersonal, organizational, and systemic barriers and enablers for successful transition were identified. The most frequently identified barriers to successful transition include lack of self-efficacy, trust, communication, coordination of care between paediatric and adult care. A need of early transition, an individualized approach, fluid and dynamic transition process, and age-appropriate resources were identified as primary patient care needs during transition. Four frameworks supporting transitional care for AYA with chronic health conditions were identified. Conclusion Limited evidence suggests that there is lack of standardized transition protocol for clinical use. There is an urgent need for an evidence-based transition tools for clinical use for AYA with chronic pain.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,033 | 0,113 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,009 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,031 | 0,025 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,002 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».