Defining Transition Success for Young Adults with Inflammatory Bowel Disease According to Patients, Parents and Health Care Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The transition from pediatric to adult care is associated with changes centered around the patient taking responsibility for their health. As the incidence of childhood-onset inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is increasing, it is important to address gaps in transition literature-specifically, the indicators signifying achievement of transition success. The study objective was to define transition success according to patients, parents, and health care providers involved in IBD transition. Methods: This study used the method of qualitative description to conduct semi-structured interviews with patients, parents, and health care providers. During interviews, demographic information was collected, and interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data analysis was conducted independently of each group using latent content analysis. Participant recruitment continued until thematic saturation was reached within each group. Results: Patients, parents, and health care providers all defined transition success with the theme of independence in one's care. The theme of disease management emerged within parent and provider groups, whereas the theme of relationship with/ trust in adult care team was common to patients and parents. Additional themes of care team management, general knowledge, care stability, and health outcomes emerged within specific groups. Conclusion: This study demonstrated differences between how patients, parents, and health care providers view transition success. This finding reveals the value of using a multifaceted definition of transition success with input from all stakeholders. Further research should prioritize the identification of factors common to patients who do not reach transition success as defined by patients, their parents, and providers.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".