Bridging the gap: a qualitative process evaluation from the perspectives of healthcare professionals of an audit-and-feedback-based intervention to improve transition to adult care for young people living with type 1 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The transition from pediatric to adult care is a vulnerable time for young people living with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Bridging the Gap (BTG) is an audit-and-feedback (AF) intervention aimed at improving both transitions-in-care processes and diabetes management in the year following transition. As part of BTG, we conducted a qualitative process evaluation to understand: (a) what was implemented and how; and (b) the contextual factors (micro-, meso- and macro-) that affected implementation, outcomes and study processes. METHODS: Using qualitative descriptive methodology, interviews were conducted with 13 healthcare professionals (HCPs) delivering diabetes care to transitioning youth. Participants were asked about their experiences of BTG study processes and feedback tools, the quality improvement (QI) initiatives implemented at their site, and potential spread and scale. Interviews also explored the impacts of COVID-19 on transition care and study processes and results. RESULTS: Five key themes were identified. Participants' reflections on the BTG study design indicated they appreciated its flexible, site-specific approach to QI, which they saw as crucial to the success of their initiatives. Engagement with feedback reports and other study resources provided comparative, site-specific data. Participants described the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and its impacts on patients, care provision and study implementation. Their site-specific QI initiatives resulted in changes to their transition practices. Finally, participants commented on how BTG and its processes fostered a community of practice (CoP) between sites, resulting in new opportunities to collaborate and share experiences. CONCLUSIONS: BTG resulted in a CoP among practitioners delivering transition care to youth with T1D, which could be scaled up to promote a learning health system in pediatric diabetes care. Qualitative process evaluation is a useful tool for understanding how contextual factors affect the implementation and outcomes of complex QI interventions.
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 | 0.113 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".