Practitioners' actions inhibited patient participation in self care decision making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paterson B. Myth of empowerment in chronic illness. J Adv Nurs2001 Jun; 34 : 574 –81 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: How do people with long standing type 1 diabetes mellitus manage self care decision making and relationships with practitioners? Grounded theory, guided by symbolic interactionism. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 22 Caucasian adults (mean age 43 y, 64% women) with type 1 diabetes of ≥15 years' duration (mean 30 y) who nominated themselves or were nominated by their physicians as expert self care managers (ie, able to make trustworthy decisions about self management and to maintain good glycaemic control). Data were collected from audiotaped think aloud periods, in which participants described their self care decision making over three 1 week periods; individual interviews held before and after think aloud periods; and a 2 hour focus group interview at the study conclusion. Transcripts of think aloud periods were used to develop interview prompts. All transcripts were analysed using constant comparative … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJournal%2Bof%2Badvanced%2Bnursing%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BAdv%2BNurs%26rft.aulast%253DPaterson%26rft.auinit1%253DB.%26rft.volume%253D34%26rft.issue%253D5%26rft.spage%253D574%26rft.epage%253D581%26rft.atitle%253DMyth%2Bof%2Bempowerment%2Bin%2Bchronic%2Billness.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1046%252Fj.1365-2648.2001.01786.x%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11380725%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=10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01786.x&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11380725&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F5%2F2%2F62.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000168979700003&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 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 | 0.007 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".