Outcomes in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Transitioning from Pediatric to Adult Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Approximately 25% of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients are diagnosed in childhood and the incidence is increasing. Thus, more patients will transition to adult care in the future. Within the literature, transition readiness has been deemed important to achieving a successful transition; however, it is unclear what outcomes define success. This scoping review aims to summarize the literature on outcomes surrounding transition from pediatric to adult care in patients with IBD. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted with the following steps: (1) identifying the research question, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) study selection, (4) charting the data, (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting results, and (6) consultation with an additional researcher. Studies were identified from 5 databases and were included in part if (1) IBD was a disease of interest, (2) referred to transition as the movement and adjustment from pediatric to adult care, and (3) evaluated patient outcomes up to 5 years after first adult appointment and/or defined a successful or unsuccessful transition. RESULTS: Twenty-six peer-reviewed studies were included. Four studies defined transition success, while 2 studies defined an unsuccessful transition. Transition outcomes were categorized into these 6 themes: being comfortable in adult care (n = 4); health care utilization (n = 19); disease management (n = 15); knowledge (n = 5); quality of life (n = 6); self-efficacy (n = 7). CONCLUSIONS: Most studies evaluated transition outcomes by themes of health care utilization (n = 19) and disease management (n = 15). Future research should focus on engaging patients along with providers in order to create a consensus on indicators of transition success.
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 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".