MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162974400 · doi:10.1177/107484070100700202

Effects of Stress-Point Intervention With Families of Repeatedly Hospitalized Children

2001· article· en· W2162974400 on OpenAlexaff
Sharon Ogden Burke, Margaret B. Harrison, Elizabeth Kauffmann, Carol Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Nursing · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoping (psychology)MedicineIntervention (counseling)AmbulatoryFamily medicineClinical psychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parents of repeatedly hospitalized children with chronic conditions are considered veterans of the health care system. Yet each hospitalization presents unique problems, can be more stressful, and has potential for lasting problems. A family-focused, supportive intervention, Stress-Point Intervention by Nurses (SPIN), was designed to reduce family problems. It was hypothesized that parents who participated in SPIN compared with those with usual care would have more satisfaction with family functioning and better parent coping after their children’s hospitalizations. A three-site clinical trial with random assignment of 23 ambulatory clinic nurses and their respective child-patients and families to experimental SPIN or usual care control groups was employed with 115 children aged 1 through 15. The Feetham Family Functioning Survey and Coping Health Inventory for Parents were completed before hospitalization and 3 months after discharge. SPIN parents were more satisfied with family functioning and had better parental coping after hospitalization than parents who received usual care.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations31
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family NursingSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207