Palliative care: A need for a family systems approach
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: When a family member is faced with a terminal illness, the impending death presents a crisis and a challenge to the entire family as a system. This article highlights the importance of caring for a family when one member has a life-threatening illness, and describes the applicability of Family Systems Theory and its major tenets to the palliative cancer population. METHODS: A MedLine and CINAHL search of Family Systems Theory related papers was conducted. RESULTS: Research studies that have been done fail to capture the view of the entire family system, often limiting the perspectives of the family to one single member. The concepts of holism, balance, boundaries, and hierarchal subsystems must be addressed in the care of any family, including those who have a family member who is dying. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: A Family Systems Theory framework can be useful in helping health care providers, and particularly nurses, deliver optimal care to palliative cancer patients and their families and standardize the way research is done by providing an appropriate framework with which to study the family. In addition, the adoption of Family Systems Theory as the standard framework from which to study families in palliative care will provide consistency for future studies that is presently lacking. Finally, nursing interventions to care for the family are suggested based on Family Systems Theory.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it