Perceptions of the family physician from adolescents and their caregivers preparing to transition to adult care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Adolescents with chronic health conditions and/or disabilities (CHC/D’s) often face challenges when transitioning to adult care, which leads to a higher risk of morbidity and mortality. Although it is recommended that establishing the medical home and family physician (FP) attachment prior to transfer will improve health outcomes, there is little evidence or policy surrounding the role of the FP during this transition. This study explores the described use of health services by adolescents with CHC/D’s, as well as the adolescent’s and caregiver’s perceptions of their FP. Methods Participants were recruited from the British Columbia Children’s Hospital, Canada and a multi-method phased approach was used. In Phase 1, 84 adolescent and caregiver pairs completed questionnaires asking what medical services they accessed for specific health needs. In Phase 2, another cohort of 21 adolescent and caregiver pairs completed the same questionnaires and were interviewed regarding their perception of their FP. Results 96% (n = 81) of adolescents with CHC/D’s in phase 1 had a FP. Thirty four percent (n = 34) of adolescents had not seen their FP in the last 6 months. While adolescents with CHC/D mostly accessed their FP for primary health issues, they frequently also accessed specialists for prescription refills (50%, n = 51), mental health (29%, n = 30) and sexual health (16%, n = 16). While most adolescent/caregiver participants reported positive communication and trust in their FP, some had a poor understanding of the FP’s role in coordinating care. Conclusion As many adolescents with CHC/D may see their FP infrequently and may not clearly understand their role, opportunities exist for strengthening primary care home attachment as well as adolescent and caregiver literacy around the potential contribution of the FP during and after transfer to adult services. Responsibility for improving care coordination for this population should be ideally shared between FPs and pediatric specialists.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".