Parent–nurse interactions: care of hospitalized children
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An essential component of quality nursing care is nurses' ability to work with parents in the hospital care of their children. However, changes in the health care environment have presented nurses with many new challenges, including meeting family-centred care expectations. AIM OF THE PAPER: To report a research study examining the experiences of parents who interacted with nurses in a hospital setting regarding the care of their children. METHODS: A qualitative approach was employed for this study. In-depth audiotaped interviews were conducted with eight parents representing seven families. Data collection was completed over a 7-month period in 2001. FINDINGS: Parents characterized their experiences with nurses caring for their children as interactions, and identified the elements of establishing rapport and sharing children's care as key to a positive perception of the interactions. These elements were influenced by parental expectations of nurses. Changes in nurses' approach were reported by parents as the children's conditions changed. CONCLUSION: Nurses were able to work with families in the hospital care of their children in ways that parents perceived as positive. However, in parents' views, their interactions with nurses did not constitute collaborative relationships. A deeper understanding of these interactions may provoke new thinking about how to promote an agency's philosophy, and how nurses enact this philosophy in practice.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it