Expressing and responding to pain and stoicism in home‐care nurse–patient interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Addressing pain and suffering are critical issues for home-care nurses. Pain is frequently experienced by people living at home with chronic illnesses, as well as acutely ill people discharged early from hospitals. The purpose of this qualitative ethology study was to explore and describe the interactions and experiences expressing and responding to pain in home-care nurse-patient interactions. A qualitative video ethology design was appropriate to inductively describe micropatterns of communicative behaviour in natural settings. Ten home-care nurse-patient dyads were videotaped over multiple visits. Data consisted of 31 videotaped visits (over 19 hours) and accompanying participant interviews. Recursive and cyclical qualitative analysis was used to describe the patterns of communication with which stoicism or endurance of pain and suffering was supported or challenged. Dominant patterns of interaction were concerned with: negotiating appropriate forms of stoicism; negotiating ways to express, understand and measure pain and suffering; and dealing with intractable or inflicted pain. The methodology of this study allows an in-depth view of typical nurse-patient interactions. It explores the subtle communicative expertise of nurses by investigating the types of communication used in nursing encounters and by explicating behavioural patterns of expressing and responding to suffering. Observational research of interaction-as-it-occurs must continue to better understand how nurses and patients co-construct personal identities of suffering and stoicism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".