Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the information people receive following general abdominal surgery is sufficient for them to be able to care for themselves at home in the community. BACKGROUND: Health promotion is a consideration for individuals in all phases of health and illness but little is known about how best to promote health during hospitalization and in the transition from hospital to home in the community. METHODS: A self-report questionnaire was used at the point of discharge and a telephone interview was conducted following discharge to determine the adequacy of discharge information received. RESULTS: Patients who received information on pain and wound management, activity, nutrition and complications generally felt that it was sufficient at the point of discharge and still felt informed up to three weeks following discharge. Up to 50% of patients did not receive information or received inaccurate information. The majority of the patients who were given information about pain and wound management did not experience any concerns following discharge. However, many of the patients who did not receive information on pain and wound management experienced concerns that required them to make a non-routine visit to a health care facility after discharge. CONCLUSION: The findings emphasize the importance of nurses providing specific and accurate verbal and printed discharge information to all patients who have undergone abdominal surgery. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Patients who receive accurate and relevant discharge information are less likely to access health care agencies following discharge. Practicing nurses need to ascertain patients' information needs and nurse educators need to ensure that discharge teaching and self-care are emphasized in undergraduate nursing curricula.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".