Enablement in health care context: a concept analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The enablement process is defined as a professional intervention aiming to recognize, support and emphasize the patient's capacity to have control over her or his health and life. The purpose of this article was to study the enablement concept through a concept analysis in the health care context to identify: (1) its attributes and (2) its antecedents and consequents. METHOD: A concept analysis was performed according to the method of Rodgers. The literature was reviewed from 1980 to June 2008, using search strategies adapted to the databases Cinahl, Medline, Embase, PsycInfo and Social Works Abstract, and hand searching. All articles contributing to a deeper understanding of the concept were included. The analysis was carried out according to a thematic analysis procedure, as described by Miles & Huberman. RESULTS: The search identified 1305 citations. After in-depth assessment of 148 potentially eligible citations, 61 articles were included in the review. Five articles were added with hand searching. Sixty-seven per cent of these articles were related to nursing. The attributes of the enablement concept included: contribution to the therapeutic relationship; consideration of the person as a whole; facilitation of learning; valorization of the person's strengths; implication and support to decision making; and broadening of the possibilities. CONCLUSION: These attributes could be used as a basis for other studies on enablement. Conceptual and empirical work is still needed to better position this concept among others such as patient-centred care, shared decision making and patient's participation.
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 | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".