Improving the transition from pediatric to adult diabetes care: the pediatric care provider's perspective in Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The transition from pediatric to adult care is a high-risk period for the emerging adult with diabetes. We aimed to determine adequacy of pediatric transition care structures and explore the pediatric diabetes care provider's perceptions of transition care. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In-depth interviews with pediatric diabetes care providers from 12 diabetes centers in Quebec were conducted. We queried alignment with Got Transition's six core elements of healthcare transition, experiences, and barriers to transition care. Interview transcripts were reviewed for themes. RESULTS: Three centers (25%) reported having any elements of formal and structured transition care preparation and planning. When referrals were within center (n=8), pediatric providers perceived that transition was smoother; information sharing relied heavily on verbal communication rather than documented medical summaries. Barriers included lack of adult providers, less flexibility in adult care scheduling, patient struggles with multiple new adult responsibilities, and insufficient understanding by adult providers of these challenges. There was a perception that the quality of pediatric care was better than adult care. Moving out of the pediatric care geographical region appeared to increase risk for poor follow-up. Patient satisfaction and regular follow-up in adult care were thought to be good measures of transition success. Programs that included overlap between pediatric and adult care were perceived as ideal. CONCLUSIONS: Important gaps in transition care practices persist. Efforts should focus on improving education in transition practices for pediatric care providers and establishing formal transition policies and structures at the institutional level.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".