Adult care providers’ perspectives on the transition to adult care for emerging adults with Type 1 diabetes: a cross‐sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To assess adult diabetes care providers' current transition practices, knowledge about transition care, and perceived barriers to implementation of best practices in transition care for emerging adults with Type 1 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: We administered a 38-item web-based survey to adult diabetes care providers identified through the Québec Endocrinologist Medical Association and Diabetes Québec. RESULTS: Fifty-three physicians responded (35%). Fewer than half of all respondents (46%) were familiar with the American Diabetes Association's transition care position statement. Approximately one-third of respondents reported a gap of >6 months between paediatric and adult diabetes care. Most (83%) believed communication with the paediatric team was adequate; however, only 56% reported receiving a medical summary and 2% a psychosocial summary from the paediatric provider. Respondents believed that the paediatric team should improve emerging adults' preparation for transition care by developing their self-management skills and improve teaching about the differences between paediatric and adult-oriented care. Only 31% had a system for identifying emerging adults lost to follow-up in adult care. Perceived barriers included difficulty accessing psychosocial services, emerging adults' lack of motivation, and inadequate transition preparation. Most (87%) were interested in having additional resources, including a self-care management tool and a registry to track those lost to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the need to better engage adult care providers into transition care practices. Despite adult physicians' interest in transition care, implementation of transition care recommendations and resources in clinical care remains limited. Enhanced efforts are needed to improve access to mental health services within the adult healthcare setting.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".