Comfort: exploration of the concept in nursing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comfort is a substantive need throughout life. However, the rise of technological influence coupled with a desire to embrace the medical concept of cure has frequently relegated the importance of nursing comfort interventions to simple tasks that can be provided by non-professional caregivers rather than an integral part of health promotion at all levels. DEFINITION: Comfort is a concept that has been explored by a number of authors. Various definitions have included comfort as an outcome of nursing, a function of nursing, a basic human need, and a process. No consensus on a definition of comfort was found in the literature. THEORY: This investigation attempts to link the ideas of comfort presented in the literature with the theories of Watson (Human Care) and Leininger (Culture Care), and discovers the existence of an integral locus for comfort in both. IMPLICATIONS: Theory-based strategies for nursing education are offered. Further research is clearly required, research methodologies based on Watson and Leininger would be appropriate for additional exploration of this concept. Practice implications include reflecting on the meaning of comfort to the patient in the context of his/her cultural values, and using this one as one of the factors in planning and implementing nursing care. CONCLUSION: Given the current emphasis on health promotion and the importance of comfort to the process of healing, comfort is an indispensable element of holistic, culturally congruent human care.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".