Transition readiness measures for adolescents with chronic illness: A scoping review of new measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The transition from pediatric to adult care settings for adolescents and young adults living with chronic conditions can be challenging and has been associated with declines in health and access to care. Well-validated measures of patients' transition readiness are critical, both for use in the clinical setting and to rigorously evaluate transition support programs for the purposes of research and health care quality improvement. Objectives: This review aimed to build off existing reviews and 1) identify and describe all newly developed and validated measures for the assessment of transition readiness for youth with chronic illness from the period of 2018-2022, and 2) evaluate their measurement properties and identify gaps in measurement testing. Methods: Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsychINFO to identify articles developing and validating transition readiness in individuals aged 12-26 years with a chronic illness between 2018 and 2022. Two reviewers independently selected articles for review and assessed quality of measurement properties. Results: 22 studies met inclusion criteria reporting on 21 different tools. 9 studies reported on the development and evaluation of a new tool, and 13 reported on the adaptation, modification, and/or translation of an existing tool. Most adapted tools were translations and adaptations of the Transition Readiness Assessment Questionnaire (TRAQ) (n = 7). While some of these studies demonstrated sufficient internal consistency and structural validity, few met the COSMIN criteria for reliability and hypothesis testing and none met the criteria for cross-cultural validity. Criterion validity and measurement error were not assessed in any studies. Conclusion: Many new transition readiness measures continue to be developed in recent years, yet few have undergone rigorous psychometric evaluation. The TRAQ was the existing measure most often used as a model for developing new or modified tools. There remains a clear need for further validation of existing measures of patients' readiness to transition as opposed to continuing to develop new measures.
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 | 0.034 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".