MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158241324 · doi:10.1177/107484002237515

A Multisite Study of Health Professionals’ Perceptions and Practices of Family-Centered Care

2002· article· en· W2158241324 on OpenAlex
Beth S. Bruce, Nicole Létourneau, Judith A. Ritchie, Sylvie Larocque, Christine Dennis, M. Ruth Elliott

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Nursing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsLaurentian UniversityMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of AlbertaIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionDilemmaHealth professionalsNursingFamily centered careHealth carePsychologyFamily healthMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Family-centered care (FCC) has been promoted as the optimal philosophy for children and families in their interactions with health professionals. Furthermore, FCC is a health care delivery model that seeks to fully involve families in the care of children through an approach that is respectful and supportive. This multisite survey was undertaken to determine the differences in health professionals’ perceptions and practices of FCC and to examine factors that influence those perceptions and practices. Findings revealed that although advances have been made in recognizing the key elements of FCC, difficulties remain in implementing these elements. The “dilemma of helping,” the potential lack of interprofessional collaboration, the design of the health care delivery system, as well as the potential lack of continuing education and mentoring programs are proposed as explanations for these findings.

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.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

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 head0.276
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.222 · 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