MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Care of self - care by other - care of other: the meaning of self-care from research, practice, policy and industry perspectives

2011· article· en· W2072145939 on OpenAlexaff
Christina Godfrey, Margaret B. Harrison, Rosemary Lysaght, Marianne Lamb, Ian D. Graham, Patricia Oakley

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing care and research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOHealth careMultitudeDiversity (politics)MEDLINEMeaning (existential)Variety (cybernetics)PsychologyCochrane LibraryNursingMedicineSociologyComputer sciencePolitical sciencePsychological interventionPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Currently, no single definition of self-care is broadly accepted in the literature. Definitions vary as to (i) who engages in self-care behaviour; (ii) what motivates self-care behaviours; and (iii) the extent to which healthcare professionals are involved. Perspectives of self-care differ between healthcare professionals and the general public, and between healthcare professionals in different disciplines and different roles. As different professions view self-care within their own domain of practice, we are left with a multitude of explanations and descriptions. This variety of conceptualisations does impact and complicate research on self-care. As part of a larger enquiry focused on the clarification of this complex concept, this study provides a content analysis of documented definitions of self-care, and a summary of the evolution of the definition of self-care over time. OBJECTIVES: To examine the diversity of definitions of self-care from the perspectives of research, practice, policy and industry, and to identify themes or trends in the evolution of the definition of self-care over time. SEARCH STRATEGY: The search strategy was designed in consultation with a library scientist to find both published and unpublished papers. A three-step search strategy was used to locate the literature. The databases searched included CINAHL, Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, Cochrane Library, Scirus and Mednar. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The definition of self-care was extracted from each paper included in the study. Using an inductive process, a content analysis was performed identifying common terms and phrases from the definitions. The definitions were then divided into four decades, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, and the evolution of the definition of self-care was examined. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In this study we sought to clarify the concept of self-care by examining in detail the definition of self-care. Content analysis of 139 definitions identified seven components of the definition and a range of terms that were applicable to each component. Evolution of the definition over time showed a more expansive definition by the end of the 2000s. Current and evolving definitions of self-care would benefit by being comprehensive and encompassing as many facets of the concept as possible. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Healthcare professionals assess, guide, instruct and support individuals as they initiate or engage in self-care. Using a comprehensive definition of self-care would provide an anchor linking each discipline as they interact not only with the individual but also among themselves. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: The concept of self-care is a many-layered one. Identifying the components in the definition of the term delineates the different areas for potential research in this area. When planning a research project, the definition of the key concept guides the research and shapes the approach to the investigation. For researchers in this area, this study illustrates the wealth and diversity of the definitions of self-care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.018
Science and technology studies0.0040.034
Scholarly communication0.0170.019
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.318
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations174
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Evidence-Based HealthcareSame topicNursing care and researchFrench-language works237,207