Protocol for a scoping review about ethics in transition programmes for adolescents and young adults with neurodisabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: As adolescents with neurodisabilities near adulthood, they and their caregivers will face the challenge of transferring from paediatric to adult healthcare systems. Despite the growing number of programmes designed to support healthcare transitions, little is known about practices that result in positive outcomes or how ethical issues are addressed. The objective of this review is to identify and document the ethical principles that may be embedded in the vision of transitional care programmes and to map ethical issues encountered in transitional care as well as the strategies employed to recognise and address these ethical issues. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: We will document hidden and explicit ethical principles and issues from empirical studies on transition programmes for youth with neurodisabilities. An initial framework developed through a content extraction strategy will serve as a point of departure for data analysis and will be iteratively refined through our analytic process and with feedback from our stakeholders, including youth with neurodisabilities and their families. Findings will then be shared in different formats with health and social services professionals, healthcare decision and policymakers. DISSEMINATION: Scoping review results will be shared at key conferences and disseminated in peer-reviewed publications as well as plain language summaries with stakeholders and the general public. Opportunities will be sought to discuss this project and its preliminary findings with partners in the paediatric, adult healthcare and rehabilitation communities comprising young people with neurodisabilities, their families, clinicians, programme managers and researchers.
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 | 0.150 | 0.182 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.096 | 0.025 |
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".