Seeking support: caregiver strategies for interacting with health personnel.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Support from health professionals can assist family caregivers and have a positive impact on their health. The purpose of this study was to explore women's perceptions of support from community resources while caring for a family member with dementia. The research questions were: What factors influence female caregivers' interactions with health personnel when seeking support? What strategies do women employ in interactions with health personnel to secure support? Symbolic interaction was the theoretical foundation for the study, which included secondary analysis of 62 interviews with 20 women concerning their caregiving experience. In addition, new data were collected from 2 focus groups with 8 volunteers recruited from among the original 20 participants. The data indicated that the women's expectations of their caregiving role and their appraisal of the care recipient influenced their interactions with health personnel when seeking support. They employed 4 broad strategies: collaborating, getting along, twigging, and fighting/struggling. A woman's use of strategies varied according to the degree of mutuality in decision-making with staff and was accompanied by both positive and negative experiences. These findings confirm the importance of mutuality in relationships with health personnel and support the use of partnership and empowerment models of professional practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".