MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170284305 · doi:10.1177/0733464811408699

Analysis and Proposed Model of Family Caregivers’ Relationships With Home Health Providers and Perceptions of the Quality of Formal Services

2011· article· en· W2170284305 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Laura Funk, Kelli Stajduhar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Gerontology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNursingSymbolic interactionismPsychologyIntervention (counseling)Agency (philosophy)Health carePerceptionInteractionismQualitative researchFamily caregiversConversationQuality (philosophy)MedicineSocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relationships between families and home health nurses promote effective care and service access for those at end of life, positive caregiver experiences, and satisfaction with care. This study explores family caregivers' accounts of relationships with home care nurses; findings inform a model of relationships and satisfaction with home health services. Ethnographic, qualitative interviews were conducted with 26 bereaved caregivers in one Western Canadian regional health agency. Data analysis was informed by symbolic interactionism. Participants described their relationships with home care nurses and spoke about their assessments of the care provided. Findings highlighted the importance of the length, frequency, and continuity of contact, conversation, socializing, and sharing information. Participants were cognizant of their own and care recipients' roles in building relationship. Nurse behaviors demonstrating affection, acknowledgment, commitment, and understanding were appreciated. A model links relationship preconditions, relational demonstrations, and perceived care quality and may be used to identify points of intervention.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations27
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied GerontologySame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207