MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073976090 · doi:10.1002/eat.22017

Navigating the transition from pediatric to adult eating disorder programs: Perspectives of service providers

2012· article· en· W2073976090 on OpenAlexaff
Gina Dimitropoulos, Angela Tran, Payal Agarwal, Brandon S. Sheffield, D. Blake Woodside

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Eating Disorders · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalToronto East General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbivalenceAnorexia nervosaEating disordersPsychologyQualitative researchFocus groupBulimia nervosaDenialDisordered eatingInclusion (mineral)NormativeMental healthPsychiatryClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychotherapistSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to conduct qualitative research on the perspectives of service providers regarding the transition process from pediatric to adult specialized eating disorder tertiary care programs. METHOD: Two focus groups with a diverse group of clinicians in pediatric and adult eating disorder programs and five qualitative interviews with clinicians in the community were conducted. RESULTS: Three themes were identified as challenges during the transition process: (1) illness related factors (ambivalence and denial); (2) the interruption of normative adolescent developmental processes by the illness; and, (3) the impact of decreased parental involvement in the adult compared to pediatric eating disorder programs. DISCUSSION: These themes were compared with empirical evidence on other chronic mental or physical health concerns for the purpose of identifying ways to facilitate a more successful service transition for young adults with anorexia nervosa. Future research and clinical implications are delineated.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Eating DisordersSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207