Transitioning Youth with Rheumatic Conditions: Perspectives of Pediatric Rheumatology Providers in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess North American pediatric rheumatology providers' perspectives on practices, barriers, and opportunities concerning the transition from pediatric-centered to adult-centered care. METHODS: Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) members completed a 25-item survey assessing current transition practices, transition policy awareness, and transitional care barriers and needs. Results were compared to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2008 survey on transitional care. RESULTS: Over half (158/288, 55%) of CARRA members completed the survey. Fewer than 10% are very familiar with AAP guidelines about transition care for youth with special healthcare needs. Eight percent have a formal written transition policy, but 42% use an informal approach. Patient request (75%) most frequently initiates transfer to adult care. Two major barriers to transition are fragmented adult medical care and lack of sufficient time to provide services. Compared with AAP survey participants, pediatric rheumatology providers are significantly more likely to help youth find an adult specialist (63% vs 45%) and discuss confidentiality and consent before age 18 (45% vs 33%), but are less likely to help with medical summary creation (16% vs 27%) or find a primary care provider (25% vs 47%). Outcomes ranked as "very important" in defining a successful transition are survival (76%), seeing an adult rheumatologist within 6 months of final pediatric rheumatology visit (66%), and maintaining insurance coverage (57%). CONCLUSION: This comprehensive survey of North American pediatric rheumatology providers regarding transitional care practices demonstrates deficiencies in education, resources, and a formalized process. Respondents support development of standardized rheumatology-specific transition practices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".