You never transition alone! Exploring the experiences of youth with chronic health conditions, parents and healthcare providers on self‐management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that fostering strategies to enable youth with chronic health conditions to work towards gradual self-management of their health is key in successful transition to adult healthcare. To date, there is limited research on self-management promotion for youth. The purpose of this study is to explore self-management from the perspectives of youth, parents and healthcare providers in transition to adult healthcare. METHODS: Part of a larger longitudinal transition (TRACE-2009-2013) study, interpretive phenomenology was used to explore the meaning of the lived experiences and perceptions of youth, parents, and healthcare providers about transition to adult healthcare. Purposeful sampling was utilized to select youth with a range of chronic health conditions from the TRACE cohort (spanning 20 diagnoses including developmental disabilities and chronic conditions), their parents and healthcare providers. RESULTS: The emerging three themes were: increasing independence of youth; parents as safety nets and healthcare providers as enablers and collaborators. The findings indicate that the experiences of transitioning youth, parents and service providers are interconnected and interdependent. CONCLUSIONS: Results support a dynamic and developmentally appropriate approach when working with transitioning youth and parents in practice. As youth depend on parents and healthcare providers for support in taking charge of their own health, parents and healthcare providers must work together to enable youth for self-management. At a policy level, adequate funding, institutional support and accreditation incentives are recommended to allow for designated time for healthcare providers to foster self-management skills in transitioning youth and parents.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".