Caring for the Vulnerable: Perspectives in Nursing Theory, Practice, and Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CARING FOR THE VULNERABLE: PERSPECTIVES IN NURSING THEORY, PRACTICE, AND RESEARCH de Chesnay, M. (Ed.) (2005). Caring for the vulnerable: Perspectives in nursing theory, practice, and research. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett. (ISBN 0-7637-4764-5 paperback $57.95; 473 pages) Mary de Chesnay, DNS7 RN, CS, FAAN, in collaboration with 65 nursing and interdisciplinary colleagues, has edited this compilation or theory, practice, and research that advances our understanding of the unique challenges of caring for vulnerable populations, de Chesnay's book features nursing concepts, theories, research, practice, teaching-learning, and policy implications-work that addresses the complex issues confronting the nursing profession and the health care system. The authors discuss the provision of health care services to a broad array of vulnerable persons, such as elders, homeless adolescents, immigrants, persons with chronic physical or psychiatric conditions, rural residents, sexual minorities, and the poor and uninsured, among others. The book emphasizes the significance of nurses as vital links between vulnerable patients and available healthcare resources. In this way, Caring for the Vulnerable: Perspectives in Nursing Theory, Practice, and Research examines the contextual factors that influence the delivery of health care for culturally diverse, vulnerable populations. That is, the book looks at a particular dilemma for today's nurses: caregiving for vulnerable populations in an increasingly complex and technologically advanced health care environment. de Chesnay has organized the book into six units and 47 chapters. Unit I explores the concepts of vulnerable populations; social justice, and cultural competence, resilience, and advocacy in the context of nursing care for vulnerable populations. Unit II presents theoretical applications and theory testing endeavors from around the world to address nursing theories that guide research and practice with vulnerable populations. Theoretical perspectives, including the works of Orem, Roy, King, Leininger, Watson, Rogers, Peplau, and Neuman, are described. Although the examples represent the grand theories in nursing, the utility of some of the general, culturebound theories can be questioned. Perhaps middlerange theories and models such as the works of Flaskerud and Winslow (1998); Hall, Stevens, and Meleis (1994), and Hall (1999) would provide more useful frameworks because of their specificity, testability, and practical applicability. Units III and IV highlight research and practice across many different vulnerable groups and in different contexts in the U.S. and internationally (e.g., Finland, Japan, Nicaragua, and Taiwan). Unit V focuses on teaching-learning experiences in undergraduate and graduate nursing curricula, such as service learning, communitybased experiences, and fieldwork for nursing students and practitioners. Unit VI addresses policy implications for the provision of healthcare to vulnerable populations, including illiterate individuals, workers without health insurance, and persons living in poverty. The theme, culturally competent care for vulnerable persons, pervades the book. Domestic and international examples enhance the reader's understanding of the cultural context of vulnerable populations and provide insight for culturally competent caregiving in many different situations. Given my practice background in psychiatric-mental health nursing and research experience conducting HIV/AIDS clinical trials in the U. …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".