MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2072145939 · doi:10.1111/j.1744-1609.2010.00196.x

Care of self - care by other - care of other: the meaning of self-care from research, practice, policy and industry perspectives

2011· article· en· W2072145939 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueNursing care and research
Établissements canadiensCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchQueen's University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCINAHLPsycINFOHealth careMultitudeDiversity (politics)MEDLINEMeaning (existential)Variety (cybernetics)PsychologyCochrane LibraryNursingMedicineSociologyComputer sciencePolitical sciencePsychological interventionPsychotherapist

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Currently, no single definition of self-care is broadly accepted in the literature. Definitions vary as to (i) who engages in self-care behaviour; (ii) what motivates self-care behaviours; and (iii) the extent to which healthcare professionals are involved. Perspectives of self-care differ between healthcare professionals and the general public, and between healthcare professionals in different disciplines and different roles. As different professions view self-care within their own domain of practice, we are left with a multitude of explanations and descriptions. This variety of conceptualisations does impact and complicate research on self-care. As part of a larger enquiry focused on the clarification of this complex concept, this study provides a content analysis of documented definitions of self-care, and a summary of the evolution of the definition of self-care over time. OBJECTIVES: To examine the diversity of definitions of self-care from the perspectives of research, practice, policy and industry, and to identify themes or trends in the evolution of the definition of self-care over time. SEARCH STRATEGY: The search strategy was designed in consultation with a library scientist to find both published and unpublished papers. A three-step search strategy was used to locate the literature. The databases searched included CINAHL, Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, Cochrane Library, Scirus and Mednar. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The definition of self-care was extracted from each paper included in the study. Using an inductive process, a content analysis was performed identifying common terms and phrases from the definitions. The definitions were then divided into four decades, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, and the evolution of the definition of self-care was examined. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In this study we sought to clarify the concept of self-care by examining in detail the definition of self-care. Content analysis of 139 definitions identified seven components of the definition and a range of terms that were applicable to each component. Evolution of the definition over time showed a more expansive definition by the end of the 2000s. Current and evolving definitions of self-care would benefit by being comprehensive and encompassing as many facets of the concept as possible. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Healthcare professionals assess, guide, instruct and support individuals as they initiate or engage in self-care. Using a comprehensive definition of self-care would provide an anchor linking each discipline as they interact not only with the individual but also among themselves. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: The concept of self-care is a many-layered one. Identifying the components in the definition of the term delineates the different areas for potential research in this area. When planning a research project, the definition of the key concept guides the research and shapes the approach to the investigation. For researchers in this area, this study illustrates the wealth and diversity of the definitions of self-care.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesIntégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,237
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,318
Tête enseignante GPT0,557
Écart entre enseignants0,239 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle