Development of Professional Practice Based on a Family Systems Nursing Framework: Nurses’ and Families’ Experiences
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
The purpose of this evaluation project was to elicit nurses'and families' experiences about differences and changes for nurses and families and the family-nurse relationship when a family systems nursing approach was used to guide practice. Following nurses' involvement in an educational workshop, the evaluation examined changes in nurses'and families' experiences over an 8-week period of a child's hospitalization in a pediatric rehabilitation center. A total of 17 nurses and 13 parents participated in the project. Nurses and parents completed questionnaires and participated in semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Nurses completed journals reflecting on their interactions with families. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. Findings indicate that a family systems nursing approach had a positive impact on how nurses viewed their nursing practice and their work with families, thereby enhancing family-nurse relationships. Such findings have relevance to clinical nursing practice, professional development, and evaluation research design.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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