The next of kin of older people undergoing haemodialysis: a discursive perspective on perceptions of participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper is a report of a study conducted to explore how the family members of older people who will undergo haemodialysis treatment for the rest of their lives perceive participation. BACKGROUND: The rights of families to participate in treatment and health care are supported by international law, and by national law in Norway since 1999. METHOD: This study, which employed an explorative qualitative approach, was carried out in Norway in 2008. Data were derived from transcribed interviews with seven family members underwent critical discourse analysis. FINDINGS: Three discourse practices about the next of kin perception of participation were found: (1) to care and take control, (2) to struggle for involvement, and (3) to be forgotten and powerless. The next of kin said that they had no dialogue with the healthcare team, and some fought to be included in the decision-making process. CONCLUSION: The dominant part of the discourse as expressed by the next of kin seems to be a paternalistic ideology. Thus, finding ways to enable the next of kin to participate in the decision-making process seems to be a major challenge for the healthcare team in the dialysis units.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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".