572-P: Transition Survey of Adult Diabetes Education Centers in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young adults with type 1 diabetes face many physiological and psychological issues in adolescence, which negatively impact glycemic control and long-term health outcomes. Dedicated transition programs facilitating the transition from pediatric to adult care have shown favourable outcomes with regards to clinic follow-up, glycemic control, and diabetes-related complications. In Ontario, Canada, it is unclear how transition programs are implemented given the lack of formal processes. Our study surveyed adult diabetes education centers in Ontario with the goal of identifying current availability and characteristics of various transitional programs, while exploring perspectives on transitional practices, clinical experiences, and barriers. There were 53 (20.2%) diabetes education centers that participated in our survey. Majority respondents were females (n=50, 94%), between age 40-50 years (n=21, 40%), identifying as a nurse or dietitian (n=35, 66%), working in a community setting (n=43, 81%). Only 25% (n=13) of respondents identified a transition program in their center, however 30.2% (n=16) provided care to both pediatric and adult patients. Where no transition programs were available, the main reason was low perceived importance and/or need (n=22, 41.5%). A lack of guidelines on what program to adopt in addition to lack of personnel and financial resources were the main barriers reported. Where transition programs were available they included education materials (n=9, 17%) and a joint clinic between pediatric and adult care (n=5, 9.4%). Only 5.7% (n=3) respondents identified a designated transitional coordinator. Almost a third of respondents (n=15, 28.3%) noted that the most common referral method was from the emergency room or following a hospitalization, rather than from a pediatric-based program (n=9, 17%). Despite a greater awareness of transition issues over the last decade, the use of structured transition programs requires further improvement across the province of Ontario, Canada. Disclosure A.Varghese: None. A.Alcaide: None. H.V.M.Lapier: None. S.Yang: None. T.Spaic: Advisory Panel; Sanofi, Research Support; Novo Nordisk, Lilly, Speaker's Bureau; Dexcom, Inc.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".