QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF A STRESS MANAGEMENT INTERVENTION FOR ELDERLY CAREGIVERS AT HOME: A CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this project was to evaluate, using a constructivist qualitative design, an individual stress management intervention based on a stress-coping model and intended for family caregivers of elderly persons within the current context of the shift to ambulatory care. This nursing intervention comprised seven weekly encounters with caregivers following their elderly family member's discharge from hospital and a follow-up visit one month after. The aim of the qualitative evaluation was to document the feasibility and acceptability of the content of the intervention, its relevance in terms of process and structure, and the benefits to the principal stakeholders. This action research project was a case study of four participants. The assessment instruments included an intervention analysis grid, a diary, and a semistructured interview guide with the participants. Data analysis drew on Guba and Lincoln's (1989) method which made it possible to refine the intervention. Results underscored that certain implementation conditions must be respected in order to ensure the intervention's acceptability and feasibility. Above all, it must remain flexible and the nurse must possess the requisite clinical skills and theoretical knowledge. It is important also to screen judiciously for caregivers likely to benefit from the intervention. The pertinence of using a circular intervention model rather than a linear approach to stress management was highlighted as well.
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 | 0.063 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".