Programmes to support transitions in community care for children with complex care needs: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to map the range of programmes in the literature to support children and youth with complex care needs and their families during transitions in care in the community. DESIGN: A scoping review of the literature. CONTEXT: This review included programmes that supported the transition in care to home and between settings in the community. DATA SOURCES: We implemented our strategy to search five databases: (1) PubMed; (2) CINAHL; (3) ERIC; (4) PyscINFO and (5) Social Work Abstracts. The search was last implemented on 29 April 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Our search results were imported into Covidence Systematic Review Software. First, two reviewers assessed titles and abstracts against our eligibility criteria. Relevant articles were then retrieved in full and reviewed by two reviewers for inclusion. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant data were extracted related to population, concept, context, methods and key findings pertinent to our review objective. RESULTS: A total of 2482 records were identified. After our two-stage screening process, a total of 27 articles were included for analysis. Articles ranged in the type of transitions being supported and target population. The most common transition reported was the hospital-to-home transition. Intervention components primarily consisted of care coordination using a teams-based approach. The most reported barriers and enablers to implementing these transition care programmes were related to physical opportunities. LIMITATIONS: Included articles were limited to English and French. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified important gaps within the literature, as well as areas for future consideration to ensure the effective development and implementation of programmes to support children and youth with complex care needs during transitions in 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 | 0.033 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".