Transitions Pop-ups: Co-designing client-centred support for disabled youth transitioning to adult life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: When transitioning to adulthood, youth with disabilities and their families face many service gaps. Successful inter-agency collaborations can promote family-centred, inclusive transition support amenable to personal choice and health conditions. This paper reports the 3-year co-design process of an innovative transition service that links a pediatric hospital and adult service agencies and addresses key areas of transition preparedness with joint accountability. Methods: A team of pediatric rehabilitation professionals, adult service providers, young adults with disabilities and their families, and researchers engaged in a co-design process over three years. Following a design thinking (DT) framework, the team went through an iterative process of Empathize. Define, Ideation, Prototyping, and Testing phases. The trial-and-error process allowed for deeper reflection and an opportunity to pivot the design. Results: , a nimble service model that can "pop up" at critical times and places to meet clients' urgent and emergent transition-related needs. Two pilot sessions were conducted at the testing phase with adult service agencies. The final model included five key elements: (1) community partnership; (2) targeted information sharing; (3) peer mentoring; (4) action (on-the-spot completion of a key transition task/activity such as submitting an adult funding application); and (5) warm handover. Conclusion: The co-design process highlighted the importance of open communication and iterative prototype testing as a means for trialing new ideas and clarifying the intent of the project. The DT framework optimally facilitated the co-development of a contextually relevant and sustainable service model for pediatric rehabilitation clients and families.
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 | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".