MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159999995 · doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keh163

Unmet education and training needs of rheumatology health professionals in adolescent health and transitional care

2004· article· en· W2159999995 on OpenAlexfundno aff
J. E. R. McDonagh, T. R. E. Southwood, Karen Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueLara D. Veeken · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBC Children's Hospital
KeywordsMedicineTransitional careHealth professionalsHealth careNursingNeeds assessmentProfessional developmentFamily medicineMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine the perceived education and training needs of health professionals involved in transitional care for adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). METHODS: Two distinct questionnaires to identify transitional issues in JIA were distributed to key health professionals (n = 908) and clinical personnel involved in the implementation of a transitional care programme (n = 22). RESULTS: The first survey was completed by 263 professionals. Education needs were reported by 114 (43%) of health professionals. Transition issues and informational resources were the most frequently reported areas of need. The second survey was completed by 22 clinical personnel who rated 'lack of training', 'lack of teaching materials geared towards adolescents' and 'limited clinic time' as the main barriers to providing developmentally appropriate care to adolescents. CONCLUSION: Unmet education and training needs of health care professionals exist in key areas of transitional care and provide useful directions for the development of future training programmes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations110
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLara D. VeekenSame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207