Youth report of healthcare transition counseling and autonomy support from their rheumatologist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To increase understanding of the healthcare transition (HCT) process for young people living with Juvenile Idopathic Arthritis (JIA) by examining: 1) the extent to which youth report discussing HCT topics with their rheumatologist and 2) the association between youth perceptions of autonomy support from their rheumatologist and HCT discussions. METHODS: Data are from an online survey of youth in the United States with rheumatologic conditions (n= 134). HCT discussion was measured by 4 questions from the National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs. Youth perception of autonomy support was measured using a validated 6-item scale. RESULTS: One third of the youth (33.7%) reported talking to their rheumatologist about transferring to adult medicine. Less than half (40.8%) of respondents talked with their rheumatologist about adult healthcare needs, and less than a quarter (22.0%) discussed acquiring health insurance as an adult. Nearly two-thirds of respondents (62.7%) reported that their rheumatologist usually/always encourages self-care responsibility. Multivariate analyses revealed significant associations between rheumatologist support for youth autonomy and HCT counseling. CONCLUSION: The low frequency of HCT counseling reported indicates a continuing need to increase awareness among rheumatologist in the USA. The strong associations between rheumatologist's support for youth autonomy and HCT counseling suggest that developmentally "in-tune" providers may deliver the best guidance about transition planning for youth living with arthritis.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".