An Examination of the Self-Care Concept Uncovers a New Direction for Healthcare Reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of self-care is multidimensional, with many defining elements.This paper describes the origin of this comprehensive concept.It examines the response of the nursing discipline to citizen self-care initiatives and the subsequent effects this response has had on the development of nursing knowledge.The evolution of self-care as a core concept within Canadian health policy is presented; the potential readiness for citizens to accept self-care as an aspect of healthcare delivery is explored, identifying potential benefits and obstacles.The paper concludes with a proposed self-care approach to healthcare reform in Canada and the subsequent influence this approach may have on the discipline of nursing.The congruency between a self-care healthcare delivery system and the theoretical foundations and perspective of healthcare delivery held by the nursing discipline is discussed.The role nurses might assume in shaping a self-care healthcare delivery system is delineated.Self-care is not a new idea.Since the beginning of humankind, people have taken action to ensure personal safety and have developed strategies to address illness and other health challenges (Haug et al. 1989;Levin 1976;Padula 1992;Saunders 1994;Woods 1989).Primitive societies developed healing rituals that sometimes involved the consumption of special foods to promote the health of particular individuals or entire communities (Hill and Smith 1985).Women assisted one another in childbirth and shared the acquired knowledge with the next generation.Implementing self-care strategies to address day-to-day concerns about health is normal and usual (Bohart and Tallman 1996;DeFriese et al.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".