There to here: young adult patients' perceptions of the process of transition from pediatric to adult transplant care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An increased understanding of the transition process from pediatric to adult transplant care may inform strategies for facilitating the transfer of patients and ultimately improve outcomes of care. OBJECTIVE: To explore the transition process from pediatric to adult transplant care from the perspective of young adults. STUDY DESIGN: Using a qualitative case study approach, data were collected from transplant recipients through organ-specific focus groups, from transplant coordinators and nurse practitioners through interviews, and from electronic documents. Data were analyzed using an editorial format. RESULTS: The analysis identified 5 elements of transition: There to Here, Getting Ready, Frame of Mind, Making It Easier, and Giving Back. In addition, threaded throughout the elements were the themes People Are Important, Expectations of Us, and Information We Need. CONCLUSIONS: The transition for young people from a pediatric to an adult transplant center can be difficult and often traumatic. Young adults who transfer to adult care need to be better prepared for the adult center, made aware of the differences, and introduced to team members before the transfer. Transition programs that aim to improve the transition process should be developed for these patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".