MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4381435021 · doi:10.1097/ncc.0000000000001244

Always a Parent

2023· article· en· W4381435021 sur OpenAlexaff
Kimberley Widger

Notice bibliographique

RevueCancer Nursing · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCardiac Structural Anomalies and Repair
Établissements canadiensCanadian Hospice Palliative Care AssociationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAuntMedicineBrotherPsychologyGerontologyNursingSociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

I have managed to successfully run a household, raise 2 children of my own, and not burn myself on a daily basis over the last 30 years. However, on a recent trip home to visit my mom, she regularly reminded me to use the good oven mitts so I would not burn myself when taking things out of the oven. I was reminded that no matter how old we are, or how old our children are, we are always a parent—and constantly looking out for the safety and well-being of our children. It reminded me of some lessons learned while doing my PhD work that continue to inform my research and teaching about supporting families receiving palliative care. My PhD research included a literature review and focus groups with bereaved parents as the basis for development of an instrument to assess the quality of end-of-life care provided to children and their families.1 At the same time as I was doing this work, my great-great-great aunt and grandma, who were both well into their 90s, had 70-year-old sons who each had cancer. Both sons were not married at the time and did not have children of their own. I spoke with both mothers regularly and was always struck by how similar their comments and concerns were to what I was hearing from the parents of young children in my research, particularly as both sons neared the end of their lives. My grandma talked about my uncle coming over daily and napping on her couch. She would just sit there watching and willing him to keep breathing. She asked whether it was possible that he might just die there on her couch. She received no formal support and no information on what to expect or what dying might look like. A few weeks after my uncle died (thankfully not on his mother’s couch), my grandma had a myocardial infarction. Her doctor said that she had literally “blown a hole in her heart” developing a new ventricular septal defect—apparently a rare complication of myocardial infarctions.2 She amazingly survived this episode, and in the weeks afterward, I was able to share some research with her that I often cited in my own work. In a series of studies conducted by Li and colleagues,3–6 parents who experienced the death of a child (<18 years old) were at a higher risk of myocardial infarction, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and mortality in the years after the death than nonbereaved parents. I told my grandma that experiencing the death of a child—even a 70-year-old one—has a physical impact on the body and that grieving parents are at a higher risk for all sorts of things, including heart attacks. Her response? “Well, that explains a lot then doesn’t it?!” She seemed comforted to know that how she was feeling and what she was experiencing was “normal.” I continue to share the results of research that links the experience of grieving the death of a child to long-term health impacts in my teaching about pediatric palliative care. Often, I am teaching an interprofessional group of health professionals who may not have a particular interest in pediatrics. While I am extrapolating from Li and colleagues' research because they focused on deaths during childhood, I encourage students to think about parents regardless of the patient’s or parent’s age. I share my grandma’s story and remind them that even a 70- or 80-year-old patient may have a parent who is greatly impacted by the illness. They may also provide care to a 90- or 100-year-old patient who is grieving the death of an adult child and experiencing the health impacts. Taking time to find out who is in a family across generations and considering who may be impacted by illness can provide important contextual details to guide delivery of high-quality 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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

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)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,813
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,165

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
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 Opus0,043
Tête enseignante GPT0,373
Écart entre enseignants0,330 · 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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCancer NursingMême sujetCardiac Structural Anomalies and RepairTravaux en français237 207