MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166192186 · doi:10.1016/j.anr.2013.04.004

Emotional Labour of Caring for Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Patients: Iranian Nurses' Experiences

2013· article· en· W2166192186 on OpenAlexaff
Vahid Zamanzadeh, Leila Valizadeh, Leila Sayadi, Fariba Taleghani, A. Fuchsia Howard, Alireza Jeddian

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Nursing Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSadnessFeelingGriefAngerNursingQualitative researchCompassionPsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe the emotional labour experienced by nurses who care for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) patients in Iran. METHODS: Eighteen nurses participated in semi-structured interviews. The interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis methods. RESULTS: Three main categories described the emotional labour involved, namely, emotional intimacy, feeling overwhelmed with the sadness and suffering, and changing self. Nurses had compassion for their patients, contributing to a close nurse-patient relationship. The nurses' emotional labour resulted in their feeling overwhelmed with sadness and suffering. Five subcategories described this emotional toll: (a) witnessing suffering, (b) struggling mentally, (c) hurting emotionally, (d) feeling drained of energy, and (e) escaping grief. Dealing with death and dying on an ongoing basis promoted the nurses' changing self. CONCLUSION: Iranian nurses who care for HSCT patients experience a range of positive and negative emotions. Establishing appropriate support systems for nurses might help mediate the negative aspects of emotional labour. thereby improving nursing work life and ultimately the quality of patient 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)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Nursing ResearchSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207