Transition from pediatric to adult aftercare for survivors of pediatric cancer in Newfoundland and Labrador: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) face increased risks during the period when they leave pediatric care and transition into adult-focused aftercare. We examined the experiences of CCSs entering adult-focused aftercare to gain a better understanding of current transition practices and barriers to transition, and to identify opportunities for improving care. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using in-person and telephone semi-structured interviews. Childhood cancer survivors who recently transitioned out of pediatric care and health care providers (HCPs) who provide care for CCSs in Newfoundland and Labrador were identified using purposive sampling. Participants were interviewed between July 2017 and March 2019. Data were analyzed using both qualitative descriptive and thematic analysis. RESULTS: We conducted interviews with 5 CCSs and 9 HCPs. All CCSs interviewed reported receiving aftercare through their pediatric oncology program; only 2 reported receiving any form of aftercare in the adult setting. The lack of a structured transition process for CCSs in the province emerged as a theme in this study. Interview participants identified several barriers to transition: the added challenges for survivors in rural areas, changes in the availability of services after the transition to adult-focused aftercare, challenges associated with navigating the adult system, and a lack of education on transitioning into adult aftercare. INTERPRETATION: We found that there was little preparation for the transition of CCSs into adult care, and their aftercare was disrupted. Programs serving CCSs have opportunities to improve care by standardizing and better supporting these transitions, for example through the development of context-appropriate educational resources.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".