An integrative review exploring transition following an unexpected health-related trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses transition, defined as an unanticipated and unwanted passage from one life phase, condition, or status to another, following an unexpected health-related illness or trauma. It does so by reporting the results of two systematic reviews, one from literature taking an occupational perspective and the other from the broader literature. The aims of these reviews were to determine: 1) how the literature taking an occupational perspective contributes to understandings of transition in people who have experienced an unexpected health-related illness or trauma, 2) how the broader literature describes the attributes of transition in this same population, 3) the differences and similarities that emerge between the occupational and broader literature, and 4) to develop a definition of an unexpected health-related transition from an occupational perspective. Journals from OTDBase were searched for the occupational literature and the data were organized into seven strands with supporting elements and references. Then the Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases were searched for their definitions and descriptions of transition. Similarities between these two bodies of literature include descriptions of the experience of transition from the individual’s perspective, acknowledged emotional and physical changes resulting from unexpected health trauma, and the strong need for social support. Differences include the role of meaningful engagement in occupation to address transition and contribute to well-being in the literature taking an occupational perspective versus the emphasis on internal processes to address uncertainty and identity issues pervasive in the broader literature. These reviews conclude with a definition of transition from an occupational perspective.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".