“Not such a kid thing anymore”: Young adults' perspectives on transfer from paediatric to adult cardiology care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transfer of adolescents with congenital heart disease from paediatric cardiology providers to specialized adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) care providers is becoming a standard practice. However, some paediatric cardiologists continue to provide care for their patients into adult life. Little is known about the perspectives of young adult patients who have been transferred to ACHD clinics versus those who continue to receive their cardiology care in paediatric settings. METHODS: Content and thematic analysis of structured telephone interviews with 21 young adults age 18-25 (13 transferred to ACHD clinic and 8 who had not transferred) was conducted to identify similarities and differences in patient characteristics of those in ACHD versus paediatric settings. RESULTS: There were no appreciable differences in gender, age, heart disease type, and independence between those transferred to ACHD care versus those not transferred. Participants in both groups were aware of differences between the paediatric and ACHD care settings and providers, with some favouring the familiarity offered by the paediatric setting and providers. Participants had varying views on parental involvement in their care; most of them had attended clinic appointments on their own. Those who had transferred to ACHD care acknowledged that it would take time to adjust to new relationships. Positive perspectives on actual or anticipated transfer to ACHD care included a growing sense of autonomy and responsibility, as well as access to reproductive information relevant to ACHD patients. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of patient characteristics distinguishing those in ACHD care versus those still followed in paediatric care suggests that system, provider, and parent factors, rather than patient factors, may account for patients' perspectives on transfer to ACHD care.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".