Psychologists’ perception of adolescents with serious illnesses and their transition to the adult healthcare system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Psychologists play a key role in the organization of care and the trajectory of patients in pediatrics, especially in how well young patients with chronic or degenerative illnesses fare through the transition to the adult sector. Their perception of the transition period and current practice have never been systematically researched yet. The aim of this study is to describe pediatric psychologists’ perceived facilitators and barriers to the transition period and review their professional practices. Methods: We led a qualitative research inquiry with 10 pediatric psychologists working at Sainte-Justine UHC (Montreal, Qc, Canada). Participants took part in an one-hour individual semi-structured interview. Inductive thematic analysis of verbal transcripts was used to describe participants perceptions of the transition process, and identify facilitators and barriers of an adequate transition within their practice. Findings Psychologists conceptualized transitioning according to three general themes: the concept itself, specific characteristics, and temporal markers. Perceived facilitators included long-term follow-up, professional autonomy and therapeutic alliance. Perceived barriers included hasty transition, adult services’ accessibility and patients’ resistance to change. Professionals recommended having a specific support transition unit and, most importantly, a consultant role in their own team in order to improve the transition process within their own practice and the organization of care. Discussion: The results bear important practical implications for optimizing the transition process, including assessing transition readiness early, dedicating more time to teamwork and case discussions within the team, and fostering relationships with the future adult heath care facility.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".