Provider’s perspectives regarding transitional urologic care process: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To generate a scoping review that summarizes perceptions and attitudes of urology providers towards the transitional urologic care process. Likewise, summarize their identified barriers, facilitators, and ideal transition care for patients with genitourinary conditions. Method: A systematic literature search was performed in Oct 2021. Records were identified for studies relevant to assessing urology specialists' practice variation, perception of barriers, and attitudes toward transitional care of patients needing life-long urologic care. The methodological quality of the cross-sectional studies was assessed using AXIS. The information extracted was clustered according to identified themes from the included studies. This scoping review was part of a systematic review registered on PROSPERO-(CRD42022306229). Results: A total of 641 records were retrieved from electronic medical databases and cross-referencing. Ultimately, ten studies were included in this scoping review, conducted in the USA (n = 7), Canada, United Kingdom, and Italy. There is a wide variation in transitional care practices and preferences. However, the common themes extracted were: appropriate age to start the transition, additional training of the providers involved in transitional care, common transition plans, and practices, characteristics of multidisciplinary teams, potential barriers, areas of improvement, or facilitators for a better transitional process. Conclusion: Common to all reports, multiple barriers are perceived. Areas that require improvement and multidisciplinary systems are needed to enhance urologic transition care. In addition, factors such as the age cut-off between pediatric and adult care or which specialist should handle specific procedures and conditions before, during, and after transition are still unclear and typically depend on the stakeholders.
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 | 0.048 | 0.162 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".