Patients and nurses negotiated home care interactions within 6 interpersonal contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spiers JA. The interpersonal contexts of negotiating care in home care nurse-patient interactions. Qual Health Res2002 ; 12 : 1033 –57 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTIONS: In home care nurse-patient interactions, what are the interpersonal contexts and social acts through which negotiation occurs? What are the outcomes of unsuccessful and successful negotiation? Qualitative ethology for video based research. A large metropolitan home healthcare agency in the western US. 10 nurse-patient dyads (3 home care nurses and 8 patients; 2 patients were each paired with 2 nurses). Patients were 25–86 years of age and required home care for acute and chronic conditions. Exclusion criterion was inability to communicate verbally because of cognitive or physical impairment. {The 3 home care nurses, who were case managers and had ≥6 years of home care experience, were peer nominated as expert practitioners.}* 31 routine home care visits were videotaped (19 hours of videotape). Nurses and patients participated in separate semistructured interviews before and after the videotaped sessions. The unit of analysis was … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DQualitative%2BHealth%2BResearch%26rft.stitle%253DQual%2BHealth%2BRes%26rft.aulast%253DSpiers%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%2BA.%26rft.volume%253D12%26rft.issue%253D8%26rft.spage%253D1033%26rft.epage%253D1057%26rft.atitle%253DThe%2BInterpersonal%2BContexts%2Bof%2BNegotiating%2BCare%2Bin%2BHome%2BCare%2BNurse-Patient%2BInteractions%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1177%252F104973202129120430%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12365587%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1177/104973202129120430&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12365587&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F6%2F3%2F96.1.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000178120200002&link_type=ISI
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".