MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001933670 · doi:10.1136/ebn.5.4.128

4 thematic patterns described the experience of placing a relative with Alzheimer’s disease in a special care unit

2002· letter· en· W2001933670 on OpenAlexaff
Chantal Caron

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2002
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingMedicineDiseaseFamily medicinePsychologyInternal medicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Butcher HK, Holkup PA, Park M, et al. Thematic analysis of the experience of making a decision to place a family member with Alzheimer’s disease in a special care unit. Res Nurs Health2001 Dec; 24 : 470 –80 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: How do caregivers describe their experiences of deciding to place a relative with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in a special care unit (SCU)? Semistructured interviews. 3 midwestern states in the US. 30 family caregivers (80% women; 70% children and 30% spouses of patients) of relatives with AD who lived in an SCU. Caregivers were interviewed for 1–3 hours by clinical nurse specialists or a gerontology specialist. These semistructured interviews were videotaped and transcribed. Caregivers were asked to describe the type and quantity of care they had provided before the SCU placement; their involvement since placement; the quality of their relationship with the SCU staff; their evaluation of the care their relative was receiving; and their views about the SCU placement. They were also asked to describe their feelings at the time of making the decision and during the actual relocation of their relative, and what helped or hindered … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DResearch%2Bin%2Bnursing%2B%2526%2Bhealth%26rft.stitle%253DRes%2BNurs%2BHealth%26rft.aulast%253DButcher%26rft.auinit1%253DH.%2BK.%26rft.volume%253D24%26rft.issue%253D6%26rft.spage%253D470%26rft.epage%253D480%26rft.atitle%253DThematic%2Banalysis%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bexperience%2Bof%2Bmaking%2Ba%2Bdecision%2Bto%2Bplace%2Ba%2Bfamily%2Bmember%2Bwith%2BAlzheimer%2527s%2Bdisease%2Bin%2Ba%2Bspecial%2Bcare%2Bunit.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1002%252Fnur.10005%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11746076%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/nur.10005&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11746076&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F5%2F4%2F128.1.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000172557000004&link_type=ISI

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207