The four I's of adolescent transition in type 1 diabetes care: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To explore adolescent perspectives on programme design in the transition to adult care. METHODS: We conducted five focus groups on adolescents with type 1 diabetes nearing the age of transition to adult care. Study participants also completed an embedded survey where they rated a wide range of potential transition interventions. Focus group transcripts were analysed with three iterations of line-by-line coding to triangulate themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: Individualization-how to personalize the transition experience (having choices in the transition experience, meeting adult provider before transition and specific transition preparation); Identity-how the world relates to my diabetes (stigma of type 1 diabetes, confusion with type 2 diabetes, diagnosis disclosure and resilience); Interconnection-how my support system can help me with my diabetes (peer support, near peer support, parental support, loss of bond with paediatric team and fear of not having a bond with adult team); and Impediment-how my diabetes limits me (self-care takes work and time, unpredictability and restrictiveness, and emotional burden). Highly rated interventions from the survey included: good communication between the paediatric and adult teams, medical summary of past diabetes care, and having paediatric and adult teams in the same building. CONCLUSIONS: The design of future transition interventions for adolescents with type 1 diabetes should address the issues of Individualization, Identity, Interconnection and Impediment. Collaborative processes between paediatric and adult providers were also rated as important strategies to facilitate the transition to adult care.
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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".