Multistakeholder Recommendations for Supporting Patients and Families Transitioning From Paediatric to Adult Congenital Heart Disease Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Transitioning from paediatric to adult congenital heart disease (CHD) care is a high-risk time for being lost to follow-up. Existing CHD transition programmes have not included patients, caregivers, and health care providers as partners in their development. This study aimed to develop recommendations for a CHD transition programme driven by lived and clinical experiences. Methods: We used a multilevel participatory process that engaged adult and paediatric people living with CHD, their caregivers, and CHD health care providers as members of the research team. We also consulted members of these stakeholder groups through a series of 3 virtual workshops that culminated in the generation of recommendations for the essential components of a CHD transition programme. Results: The Transition Essentials recommendations inform what information, education, or support is required, who should provide it, and when and how it should be provided. Information, education, and support for self-management and knowledge are required for people living with CHD. Caregivers require information, education, and support to build capacity in people living with CHD and navigate their new role in their loved ones' life. The health care team should provide this information, education, and support with peer support options when people living with CHD are 15-22 years of age. This information, education, and support should be individualized, navigate limitations, build over time, have multimodal options, and be available virtually or in person. Conclusions: Engaging those with lived and clinical expertise to develop recommendations for the essential components of a CHD transition programme provides important insights missing from previous studies.
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 | 0.056 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".