Perceptions of hospital admission in patients with cystic fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims and objectives: This paper is a report of a study of experiences of people with Cystic Fibrosis (CF) with their hospital admission. It evaluates how they perceive their treatment and care and the impact on their social life (school or work). Background: In The Netherlands, people with CF are hospitalized in seven CF centers. In general, hospitalization may raise several challenges concerning the patient’s psychosocial well-being, before, during and after the admission. The admission of people with CF is complicated, because of segregated treatment and care that aims to prevent hospital-based cross-infection. Design: This article reports on a qualitative study. Methods: Data were collected during 2009 and 2010. Nineteen people with CF admitted for more than 5 days in one of the seven Dutch CF-centres participated. Results and conclusions: The findings are organized into five contexts with subthemes: Before admission & Arrival (1); Treatment & Care (2); Room & Stay (3); Discharge (4); Social & Societal context (5). The findings show that patients express a need for enhancing the quality of some treatments, like intravenous injections and patients express normative expectations of professionals that directly relate to their psychosocial well-being, e.g. they want to be ‘seen’ and treated as human beings and not solely as patients. They desire segregation policies to be consistent, whilst simultaneously they prefer flexible segregation guidelines. In general, respondents are satisfied with hospital facilities. The study reports on challenges concerning continuation of school and work during the admission. The paper is relevant to every hospital where people are being nursed in isolation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".