Closing the Gap: Results of the Multicenter Canadian Randomized Controlled Trial of Structured Transition in Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine if a structured transition program for young adults with type 1 diabetes improves clinic attendance, glycemic control, diabetes-related distress, quality of life, and satisfaction with care. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, young adults (17–20 years) with type 1 diabetes were randomly assigned to a transition program with a transition coordinator or to standard care. The intervention lasted 18 months (6 in pediatric and 12 in adult care). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who failed to attend at least one adult diabetes clinic visit during the 12-month follow-up after completion of the intervention. RESULTS We randomized 205 participants, 104 to the transition program and 101 to standard care. Clinic attendance was improved in the transition program (mean [SD] number of visits 4.1 [1.1] vs. 3.6 [1.2], P = 0.002), and there was greater satisfaction with care (mean [SD] score 29.0 [2.7] vs. 27.9 [3.4], P = 0.032) and less diabetes-related distress (mean [SD] score 1.9 [0.8] vs. 2.1 [0.8], P = 0.049) reported than in standard care. There was a trend toward improvement in mean HbA1c (8.33% [68 mmol/mol] vs. 8.80% [73 mmol/mol], P = 0.057). During the 12-month follow-up, there was no difference in those failing to attend at least one clinic visit (P = 0.846), and the mean change in HbA1c did not differ between the groups (P = 0.073). At completion of follow-up, the groups did not differ with respect to satisfaction with care or diabetes-related distress and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS Transition support during this 18-month intervention was associated with increased clinic attendance, improved satisfaction with care, and decreased diabetes-related distress, but these benefits were not sustained 12 months after completion of the intervention.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".