Mixed‐methods evaluation of a transition and young adult clinic for kidney transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of the present study were to describe the experiences of kidney transplant patients attending a young adult clinic or a regular adult clinic, to explore similarities and differences between the groups, and to conduct an evaluation of the clinical and psychosocial outcomes of the young adult clinic, by comparing these outcomes to those of the regular adult clinic. A mixed-methods design combining qualitative and quantitative data was used. Empirically validated questionnaires measuring self-determination theory variables, quality of life, and adherence were distributed to all consenting patients attending the YAC (n = 17) and RAC (n = 16). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a subsample of the first (n = 10) and second group (n = 8), and analyzed using thematic analysis. Clinical outcomes were retrieved from medical records. Descriptive, correlational, and comparative analyses were performed. We found clinically significant differences on tacrolimus blood levels variability, self-reported adherence, and physical quality of life. Small and medium effect sizes were detected. No statistical differences were found. Statistically significant correlations were found between self-determination theory variables and both physical quality of life and different measures of adherence. Four themes characterized patients' experiences: resilience; relational needs and the therapeutic alliance; quest for balance; and quest for normalcy. The young adult clinic seems to meet its initial objectives and to make a difference particularly in the early period post-transition, but over time what matters most for patients is therapeutic alliance. Mental health issues need to be better addressed, and special attention should be paid to youths transplanted in an adult setting.
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 | 0.023 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".