The Well-Being of Youth with Complex Needs in Care Preparing to Transition to Adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Youth with chronic developmental delays and comorbid psychological disorders (complex needs) who live in out-of-home care are at increased risk of difficulties in all life areas. Few studies have investigated factors that facilitate positive outcomes. This study investigated the strength of youth’s connections with caring adults as a significant mediator of social support and personal well-being. A convenience sample of 25 youth with a mean age of 18.14 years old who lived in a group home or semi-independent living settings rated their social support (instrumental and emotional), strength of connections, and personal well-being on self-report measures. Research questions were examined with correlation, regression, and mediation analyses. Older youth reported less instrumental social support; this type of support did not correlate with well-being. Emotional support correlated with well-being. Strong relationships with caring adults partially explained how youth who perceive more emotional support feel happier about their life overall. The findings of this study show how to support youth with complex needs in care during the challenge of transitioning to adulthood and provides evidence that allows us to identify the positive impact of perceived strong connections with caring adults. Perceived strength of relationships with caring adults has a great influence on their well-being.HIGHLIGHTSYouth in care with complex needs experience poor outcomes in the transition to adulthood.Perceived instrumental support was negatively correlated with age; older youth in care perceive less instrumental support.Emotional support predicts personal well-being, but instrumental support does not.Strong connections with adults help youth feel happy about their future outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".