Partnership: an analysis of the concept within the nurse–client relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Current nursing literature that describes the nurse-client relationship as a partnership provides little clarity about the elements and processes of this partnership. This is hardly surprising as conceptual definitions of partnership differ in scope and vary according to the context of the partnership and types of partners. AIMS OF THE PAPER: This paper examines the concept of partnership using Rodgers's (2000) evolutionary approach to concept analysis. The paper describes the antecedents, attributes and consequences of partnership as well as changing socio-political and economic contexts that illuminate how and why nurse-client partnership emerged. Temporal changes in the concept of partnership are also examined. FINDINGS: The nurse-client relationship as partnership evolved from a growth in democratic thinking and progress in clarifying how to honour basic human rights in health care relationships. The attributes of partnership include structural and process phenomena. The structure of partnership includes the phases of the relationship, focus and aims of each phase, and roles and responsibilities of the partners. The process of partnership embodies power sharing and negotiation. The main consequence of partnership is client empowerment, which is understood to be the improved ability of the client to act on his/her own behalf. CONCLUSIONS: The paper concludes with suggestions for further development of the concept of partnership through empirical research.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".