Service use and glycaemic control of young people with type 1 diabetes transitioning from paediatric to adult care: a 5‐year study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regular contact with specialist care has been linked to better diabetes outcomes for young people with type 1 diabetes (YPwT1D), but evidence is limited to population-based service usage and outcomes. AIMS: This observational 5-year study sought to capture YPwT1D living in the study catchment area (covering metropolitan, regional and rural Australia) as they transitioned to adult-based diabetes healthcare services and to describe their glycaemic control and complication rates, service usage and associated factors. METHODS: Records between 2010 and 2014 in a public healthcare specialist diabetes database were extracted, care processes and outcomes were described, and associations were sought between episodes of care (EOC) and potentially predictive variables. RESULTS: Annual cohort numbers increased yearly, but without significant differences in demographic characteristics. Each year around 40% had no reported planned specialist care, and the average number of planned EOC decreased significantly year on year. Overall, mean HbA1c levels also reduced significantly, but with higher values recorded for those living in non-metropolitan than metropolitan areas (achieving significance in 3 out of 5 years). Diabetes complication assessments were only reported in 37-46%, indicating one in five with retinopathy and hypertension affecting one in three to five young people. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the importance of investment to address the specific needs of adolescents and young adults and demonstrate the need for better support during these vulnerable early years, particularly for non-metropolitan residents. This will entail changes to funding mechanisms, the health workforce and infrastructure, and new models of care to provide equity of access and quality of specialist care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".