Transition From Pediatric to Adult Services: Challenges for Family Caregivers of Young Adults With Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family caregivers are the main source of support for survivors of traumatic brain injury (TBI) while they transition from pediatric to adult care service and support systems. Yet there is little research that examines the needs of these caregivers during the transition phase. The aim of this qualitative phenomenological study was to examine the lived experiences of family caregivers of young adults with TBI who had recently transitioned from services for children and adolescents to adult care service and supports. The study sample comprised 15 family caregivers of young adult TBI survivors who had transitioned to adult services in the last 5 years. They were recruited from two large hospitals and a caregiver support center in a city in Western Canada. Semistructured interviews were conducted with the caregivers and the data were analyzed using Colaizzi’s approach in developing an essential structure of the phenomenon of caregiving. Fifteen themes emerged from the analysis and these are discussed under two broad domains: (a) caregivers’ experiences and challenges with their relative at the time of transition; (b) caregivers’ challenges with services and supports systems during transition. Findings suggest that there is a wide gap between what caregivers need and what is available to them to support their young adult relative through the transition process and beyond. Most caregivers reported that the transition phase is overwhelming and has a profound and pervasive impact on their lives. Implications of the findings and recommendations for policy and practice are discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".