MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Systems of care: transition from the bio‐psycho‐social perspective of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health

2011· article· en· W1950350016 on OpenAlex
Olaf Kraus de Camargo

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Care Health and Development · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthPsychosocialHealth careProcess (computing)Perspective (graphical)Intervention (counseling)PsychologyTransition (genetics)Capability approachWelfareNursingMedicinePolitical scienceComputer sciencePsychiatryRehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The transition process of vulnerable adolescents, including those with complex health conditions, occurs in all domains of their life. Systems of care are usually designed but also restricted within certain aspects of life, as addressed by health, education and social welfare. The need for a co-ordinated approach to support the transition process has been voiced before, but usually publications focus on one system of care, usually the healthcare system or the education system. Recent moves, especially in the UK, are trying to integrate these different systems allowing for a more integrated transition process. This article illustrates how these developments are represented within the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and provides arguments that favour a greater integration of systems of care. METHODS: Examples of systems of care from North America and the EU (Germany and the UK) are described. They were selected from a literature search using the terms 'systems of care', 'transition' and 'transitional care' in different combinations. Further supportive information derives from personal experience working in some of these systems in different countries. The systems were analysed according to the components of health they address within the ICF. RESULTS: In order to assist adolescents in transition of services, there is a consensus that the approach should be individualized. The overall goal of any intervention or service should be to achieve optimal functioning of the patients. In the framework of the ICF, this means that biomedical and contextual (psychosocial) issues need to be taken into consideration. This requires an exchange of information between the different systems or the integration of those systems involved with the patient. CONCLUSION: To facilitate transition, it has been shown that close collaboration between agencies, a transdisciplinary approach of the professionals involved and the use of key workers are helpful.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it