Facilitated Sensemaking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family members of intensive care unit patients may develop anxiety, depression, and/or posttraumatic stress syndrome. Approaches to prevention are not well defined. Before testing preventive measures, it is important to evaluate which interventions the family will accept, use, and value. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of an intervention for support for families of mechanically ventilated adults, grounded in a new midrange nursing theory titled "Facilitated Sensemaking." Families were provided a kit of supplies and the primary investigator coached families on how to obtain information, interpret surroundings, and participate in care. Participants were asked to complete an adapted Critical Care Family Needs Inventory and Family Support Program evaluation. Family members of 30 patients consented to participate; 22 participants completed the surveys. Internal consistency reliability of the adapted Critical Care Family Needs Inventory was high (alpha = .96). Results validated the importance of informational needs and provided a score indicating the family member's perception of how well each need was met, weighted by importance, which identified performance improvement opportunities for use by clinical managers. The program evaluation confirmed that families will use this format of support and find it helpful. Personal care supplies (eg, lotion, lip balm) were universally well received. Forty-two referrals to ancillary service were made. Operational issues to improve services were identified. As proposed in the Facilitated Sensemaking model, family members welcomed interventions targeted to help make sense of the new situation and make sense of their new role as caregiver. Planned supportive interventions were perceived as helpful.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".