MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128631253 · doi:10.1177/1074840706291436

Family Systems Nursing

2006· article· en· W2128631253 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peggy Simpson, “Frederick” Keung Kin Yeung, “Alan” Tsang Yat Kwan, Wu Kam Wah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Nursing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingReciprocity (cultural anthropology)Intervention (counseling)MedicineFamily systemsMental healthMental illnessCritical appraisalNursing practicePsychologyFamily medicinePsychiatryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Hong Kong, mental health care has traditionally focused on the individual and the concept of considering the family as the unit of care is relatively new. The purpose of this article is to describe the process of planning, implementing, and evaluating a family systems nursing project in a psychiatric setting in Hong Kong. Psychiatric nurses (N = 110) participated in seminars focusing on family systems nursing concepts and individuals and families suffering from mental illness. The Calgary Family Assessment Model and the Calgary Family Intervention Model formed the framework for practice. Significant changes were found both in the nurses' critical appraisal of their clinical practice related to family systems nursing and in their reflections on the reciprocity in their nurse/family relationships. In addition, hospital-wide systems outcomes were noted. This project appears to demonstrate that a family systems nursing approach is relevant for psychiatric nurses caring for Chinese individuals and their families suffering from mental illness.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations33
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family NursingSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207