MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113492108 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v7n2p8

Informational Support to Family Members of Intensive Care Unit Patients: The Perspectives of Families and Nurses

2014· article· en· W2113492108 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mina Gaeeni, Mansoureh Ashghali Farahani, Nooredin Mohammadi

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIran University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsIntensive care unitIntensive careNursingContent analysisMedicineUnit (ring theory)Data collectionInformation needsQualitative researchPsychologyFamily medicineIntensive care medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The receiving information about the patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit is classified among the most important needs of the family members of such patients. Meeting the informational needs of families is a major goal for intensive care workers. Delivering honest, intelligible and effective information raises specific challenges in the stressful setting of the intensive care unit (ICU). The aim of this qualitative study was to explain perspectives of families of Intensive Care Unit patients and nurses about informational support. METHOD: Using a conventional content analysis approach, semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants to explore their perspectives of providing informational support to families of ICU patients. A purposeful sampling method was used to recruit nineteen family members of thirteen patients hospitalized in the ICU and twelve nurses from three teaching hospitals. In general, 31 persons participated in this study. Data collection continued to achieve data saturation. FINDINGS: A conventional content analysis of the data produced three categories and seven sub-categories. The three main categories were as followed, a) providing information, b) handling information and c) using information. Providing information had three sub-categories consisting of "receiving admission news", "receiving truthful and complete information" and receiving general information. Handling information had two sub-categories consisting "keeping information" and "gradual revelation". Lastly, using information has two sub-categories consisting of "support of patient" and "support of family members". CONCLUSION: The results of this study revealed perspectives of families of Intensive Care Unit patients and nurses about informational support. It also determines the nurses' need to know more about the influence of their supportive role on family's ICU patients informing. In addition, the results of present study can be used as a basis for further studies and for offering guidelines about informational support to the families of the patients hospitalized in the ICU.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations56
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207