The LIFEspan model of transitional rehabilitative care for youth with disabilities: Healthcare professionals' perspectives on service delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: LIFEspan is a service delivery model of continuous coordinated care developed and implemented by a cross-organization partnership between a pediatric and an adult rehabilitation hospital. Previous work explored enablers and barriers to establishing the partnership service. This paper examines healthcare professionals' (HCPs') experiences of 'real world' service delivery aimed at supporting transitional rehabilitative care for youth with disabilities. METHODS: This qualitative study - part of an ongoing mixed method longitudinal study - elicited HCPs' perspectives on their experiences of LIFEspan service delivery through in-depth interviews. Data were categorized into themes of service delivery activities, then interpreted from the lens of a service integration/coordination framework. RESULTS: Five main service delivery themes were identified: 1) addressing youth's transition readiness and capacities; 2) shifting responsibility for healthcare management from parents to youth; 3) determining services based on organizational resources; 4) linking between pediatric and adult rehabilitation services; and, 5) linking with multi-sector services. CONCLUSIONS: LIFEspan contributed to service delivery activities that coordinated care for youth and families and integrated inter-hospital services. However, gaps in service integration with primary care, education, social, and community services limited coordinated care to the rehabilitation sector. Recommendations are made to enhance service delivery using a systems/sector-based approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".