From critical care to comfort care: the sustaining value of humour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To identify commonalities in the findings of two research studies on humour in diverse settings to illustrate the value of humour in team work and patient care, despite differing contexts. Background. Humour research in health care commonly identifies the value of humour for enabling communication, fostering relationships, easing tension and managing emotions. Other studies identify situations involving serious discussion, life-threatening circumstances and high anxiety as places where humour may not be appropriate. Our research demonstrates that humour is significant even where such circumstances are common place. METHOD: Clinical ethnography was the method for both studies. Each researcher conducted observational fieldwork in the cultural context of a healthcare setting, writing extensive fieldnotes after each period of observation. Additional data sources were informal conversations with patients and families and semi-structured interviews with members of the healthcare team. Data analysis involved line-by-line analysis of transcripts and fieldnotes with identification of codes and eventual collapse into categories and overarching themes. RESULTS: Common themes from both studies included the value of humour for team work, emotion management and maintaining human connections. Humour served to enable co-operation, relieve tensions, develop emotional flexibility and to 'humanise' the healthcare experience for both caregivers and recipients of care. CONCLUSIONS: Humour is often considered trivial or unprofessional; this research verifies that it is neither. The value of humour resides, not in its capacity to alter physical reality, but in its capacity for affective or psychological change which enhances the humanity of an experience, for both care providers and recipients of care. Relevance to clinical practice. In the present era which emphasises technology, efficiency and outcomes, humour is crucial for promoting team relationships and for maintaining the human dimension of health care. Nurses should not be reluctant to use humour as a part of compassionate and personalised care, even in critical situations.
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 | 0.012 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".