A commentary on the healthcare transition policy landscape for youth with disabilities or chronic health conditions, the need for an inclusive and equitable approach, and recommendations for change in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing number of youth with healthcare needs such as disabilities or chronic health conditions who require lifelong care. In Canada, transfer to the adult healthcare system typically occurs at age 18 and is set by policy regardless of whether youth and their families are ready. When the transition to adult services is suboptimal, youth may experience detrimental gaps in healthcare resulting in increased visits to the emergency department and poor healthcare outcomes. Despite the critical need to support youth with disabilities and their families to transition to the adult healthcare system, there is limited legislation to ensure a successful transfer or to mandate transition preparation in Canada. This advocacy and policy planning work was conducted in partnership with the Patient and Family Advisory Council (PFAC) within the CHILD-BRIGHT READYorNot™ Brain-Based Disabilities (BBD) Project and the CHILD-BRIGHT Policy Hub. Together, we identified the need to synthesize and better understand existing policies about transition from pediatric to adult healthcare, and to recommend solutions to improve healthcare access and equity as Canadian youth with disabilities become adults. In this perspective paper, we will report on a dialogue with key informants and make recommendations for change in healthcare transition policies at the healthcare/community, provincial and/or territorial, and/or national levels.
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 | 0.020 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.044 | 0.054 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".