What Else? The Basics and Beyond for Effective Consultations with Youth with Special Healthcare Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Youth with special healthcare needs (YSHCN) require medical support for disease management and equally require that providers be responsive to their ever-changing and sometimes unique psychosocial and developmental needs. This paper reviews the fundamentals of adolescent consultation reminding the reader that YSHCN are, after all, still youth with the same basic needs as their healthy peers. Beyond the basics, consultations with this population are characterized by complexities which are best managed by providers who can nimbly adjust their clinical stance. In non-urgent clinical scenarios, clinicians can adopt a coaching stance which we introduce and expand upon in this paper. Characterized by the five elements of non-judgment, curiosity, empathy, openness, and flexibility, the coaching stance can be adopted without specific training. We demonstrate its application using TGROW (Topic, Goal, Reality, Options and Wrap Up), a coaching framework that holds promise for use in clinical settings. Consultants may consider incorporating the coaching stance and TGROW into their practice repertoire, as both may be particularly helpful when consulting with adolescents with chronic illness.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".