Portfolio of health advice for young people with disabilities transferring to adult care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The transition from paediatric to adult services for young people with complex disabilities is fraught with anxieties for families. To facilitate the transition process a portfolio comprising reports from parents, paediatrician and therapists was collected and given to the young person and family on leaving school. AIM: To evaluate the young people and their parents' views of the usefulness of portfolios in providing comprehensive picture of their health needs. METHODS: A prospective study was performed. Eight families were interviewed and semi-quantitative feedback obtained using standardized questionnaires. RESULTS: Seven out of eight young people and their families were satisfied with the portfolios they received. All of them found the portfolios worthwhile and useful. A quarter of the families would like to have been consulted more about the content of the individual reports. CONCLUSIONS: Portfolios of health reports facilitate transfer of information when young people with disabilities move from paediatric to adult services. Ideally portfolios should be interagency, and include reports from education and social services.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".