Transitioning to adulthood with a progressive condition: best practice assumptions and individual experiences of young men with Duchenne muscular dystrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Youth with progressive conditions are living longer, and there is increased health care focus on assisting them with "transitioning" to adult services and adult life. The purpose of this investigation was to examine key discourses and normative assumptions underpinning transitions best practices and how they are reflected in the experiences of young men with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). METHODS: Using a critical perspective, we qualitatively analyzed influential transitions best practice documents to identify their underpinning discursive assumptions. We compared these to the analysis of qualitative interviews and diary data from a study of 11 young men with DMD. RESULTS: Transitions best practices are underpinned by discourses of developmental progression. They reproduce notions that associate successful transitions with becoming as independent as possible, approximating normal life trajectories, and planning for future adulthood. The accounts of youth with DMD both reflected and resisted these future-oriented discourses in creative ways that maintained positive personal identities. CONCLUSIONS: Normal developmental progression towards typical adult roles constitutes the generally accepted aims of transitions practices. Such aims may not be appropriate for all youth with disabilities. We suggest that alternative understandings of the life course and approaches to care need to be considered alongside dominant practices. Implications for Rehabilitation Children and youth with progressive conditions, such as DMD, are living longer and there is increased interest in designing programs that will assist them with "transitioning" to adulthood. Transitions best practices reflect dominant social values and assumptions about what constitutes a successful adulthood, embedded in goals such as independent living, self-management and obtaining work. Rehabilitation professionals should be aware of both positive (e.g. feelings of achievement) and negative (e.g. anxiety about the future) consequences of transitions practices that emphasize normal social developmental trajectories and milestones. Discussions with youth should offer multiple possibilities for living a good life in the present and provide support to address negative feelings and the progressive effects of DMD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".