An exploration of empowerment discourse within home-care nurses’ accounts of practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we explore how client and family caregiver 'empowerment' is interpreted by home-care nurses talking about their practice with palliative (and to a lesser extent, non-palliative) clients and families. We draw on secondary analysis of qualitative data collected through in-person interviews with 27 home-care nurses from a western Canadian health authority. First, we illustrate how the practice ideal of empowerment, in the sense of 'respecting autonomy and choices', can be understood as reflecting home-care nurses' needs to mitigate the emotional impact of feeling unable to effectively help palliative clients/families. Then, we illustrate how the practice ideal of empowerment, in the sense of 'promoting independence', can be understood to accomplish the need to shift responsibility for particular care tasks to clients and family members. Lastly, home-care nurses, talk about 'promoting choices' is also investigated. 'Choice' was framed narrowly with respect to allowing palliative clients and families to determine visit time and frequency. Findings are discussed in relation to the concept of 'responsibilization'.
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 | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".