THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAMILIES’ PERCEPTIONS AND NURSES’ PERCEPTIONS OF FAMILY NURSING PRACTICE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The prevalence of diabetes, a chronic illness, is expected to substantially rise over the next fifteen years (Whiting, Guariguata, Weil, & Shaw, 2011). One approach to ease the burden on the US health care system is the involvement and participation of family in care of the hospitalized adult. There is increasing evidence that involvement of family during exacerbations and hospitalizations increases client and family satisfaction during admissions and may also decrease length of stay and therefore cost (Powers & Rubenstein, 1999). The purposes of this study were to examine family members’ perceptions of family functioning, family health and the social support received from nurses when an older adult family member with diabetes is hospitalized. Also examined were nurses’ critical appraisals of their family nursing practice, as well as their experiences of the reciprocity and interaction in the nurse-family relationship. This study further explored the relationships between nurses’ critical appraisals of their family nursing practice and nurses’ experiences of the interaction and reciprocity in the nurse-family relationship with families’ perceptions of family function, family health and perceived social support from nurses. Finally, this study examined if nurses’ critical appraisal of their family nursing practice, and nurses’ experience of the interaction and reciprocity in the nurse-family relationship, differed across nursing units, and what the impact was on families’ perceptions of family function, family health and social support received. Wright and Leahey’s Calgary Family Intervention Model (CFIM) (1994) undergirded this descriptive study, which was conducted on four medical-surgical units in a community hospital. Sixty registered nurses and sixty family members of older adult patients participated. Two instruments were used to address the variables of interest in this study. Family member participants completed the Family Function, Family Health and Social Support Instrument (Astedt-Kurki, Tarkka, Paavilainen, & Lehti, 2002; Astedt-Kurki, Tarkka, Rikala, Lehti, & Paavilainen, 2009) as well as a demographic questionnaire. Registered Nurse participants completed demographics and the Family Nursing Practice Scale (Simpson & Tarrant, 2006). Significant variation was found across the four study units in how nurse participants reflected on their experiences with interaction and reciprocity in the nurse-family relationship. However, family member participants had no significant variation in their perceptions of family functioning, family health and social support received from nurses. This research informs practice by providing insight into nurses’ perceptions regarding the advantages and the disadvantages of working with families. Additionally, this study contributes evidence of what nurses are currently doing to include families in their nursing practice. More research is needed which focuses on collaboration and inclusion of families in care of their loved one.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,033 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».