Family health nursing and empowering relationships.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine how empowerment, as an ideology and a practice of teaching and learning, was understood and applied by public health nurses (PHNs) in health education with child bearing and child rearing families. METHOD: Feminist poststructuralism was used to guide data collection and analysis. In-depth, individual interviews were conducted with three mothers and three PHNs and explored the different perspectives held by mothers and PHNs during a home visit. FINDINGS: Moments of conflict, contradiction, affirmation, and agreement highlighted various empowering relations. Individual choice and recognition of knowledge and power exemplified how both mothers and PHNs used their "agency" to position themselves into a particular relationship. The analysis includes five sections: (a) mother's perceptions of PHNs, (b) normalization as problematic: the good/bad dichotomy, (c) professional/expert: the balance of power, (d) working the relationship, and (e) reflections on empowerment. CONCLUSION: The information gathered from this studyprovides a rich understanding of the nurses' educational practices with new mothers.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".