Public Health Nurses' Endeavours with Families Using the 15 Minute Interview/nga Mahi Nui a Nga Tapuhi Ki Nga Whanau Ma Te Whakamahi I Te Uiui 15 Meneti Te Roa
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IntroductionFor over century public health nurses (PHNs) in New Zealand (NZ) have practiced in urban and rural communities, advocating for and promoting health and wellbeing for people and families (Ministry of Health [MOH], 2013). In recent years the focus has narrowed to the health and wellbeing of school aged children and their families (Hansen, Carryer, & Budge, 2007). A family-centered approach, the hall mark of PHNs' practice (Garlick, 2006; Yarwood, 2008; McMurray & Clendon, 2015) mirrors the primacy given to family in Canada (Doane & Varcoe, 2005; Holtslander, 2005; Martinez, D'Artois, & Rennick, 2007; Wright & Leahey, 2013) in America (Denham, 2003) and more recently in Finland (ÂstedtKurki, 2010) with family systems nursing being introduced into Landspitali University hospital, Iceland (Svavardottir, 2008; Svavardottir, Tryggvadottir, & Sigurdardottir, 2012).Public health nurses embrace wide spectrum of health needs from well-functioning families with minor child health/behavioral concerns, to families coping with long term health conditions, with limited material and/or personal resources and resiliencies (Browne, Doane, Reimer, MacLeod, & McLellan, 2010), including those marginalised by ethnicity, poor housing and low socio-economic status. A recent NZ Child Poverty report found growing number of families in need, with 285,000 children living in unacceptable poverty (MMResearch, 2014) indicating PHNs response may include addressing and alleviating the effects of poverty and its pervasive health related sequela (MOH, 2013).Public health nurses have the expertise and skills to work relationally with each family, to listen, negotiate and formulate way forward without judgement. Navigating such complex and demanding work can be facilitated by utilizing relevant assessment tools and models (Mahoney, 2010), one of which is Wright and Leahey's (1999) 15 minute family interview that includes an ecomap and genogram. These tools became the focus of qualitative study exploring PHNs use of the 15 minute interview, the findings of which are reported in this article.Literature reviewBased on the well-known Calgary Family Assessment Model and Calgary Family Intervention model (Wright & Leahey, 2013) the 15 minute family interview offers pragmatic framework for nurses committed to involving families in their practice, within an increasingly time constrained health care environment (Wright & Leahey, 1999). It is not, according to Holtslander (2005, p.5), a decontextualised nursing tool; rather it is flexible interview guide that is embedded in family nursing practice. Five components structure the 15 minute interview: Manners, those core social skills so necessary when interacting with people; Therapeutic conversations, those with purpose; Therapeutic questions, questions that enable transparency of family needs; Commendations, acknowledging family's strength and resources; and the use of genogram and ecomap. Apart from Wright and Leahey's development work (Wright & Leahey, 2013), there is paucity of literature exploring the use of the 15 minute interview (Bell, 2012). Whereas nurses may be aware of the importance of families in their practice, few, according to Holtslander, Solar and Smith, (2013) think 'family' in intervention. In an effort to improve family care and the bridge theory/practice gap in undergraduate education, Holtslander et al. (2013) explored the use of the 15 minute interview, an exercise which enhanced students' interaction and skills with families.Although no community based studies were found, two located in hospital settings demonstrated the use of the 15 minute interview. Set in postpartum unit, the first actively encouraged fathers to be involved in caring for the new family addition (Holtslander, 2005). Whereas the first study focused on the family member's response, the second, set in pediatric unit, examined nurses perceptions of the tool's value (Martinez et al. …
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».