Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify the principal intervention needs of elderly couples living with moderate-stage Parkinson disease and their preferences regarding the modalities of a possible nursing intervention. The study's framework of reference consisted of the transitions theory developed by Meleis, Sawyer, Im, Hilfinger Messias, and Schumacher (2000) and of the systemic approach developed by Wright and Leahey (2009). A qualitative design and a participative process were employed. Ten couples were interviewed dyadically. Intra- and interdyad content analyses were performed. Results indicate that the principal intervention needs of couples are geared to developing effective strategies for remaining healthy and planning for the future, to improving communication between spouses and with the formal and informal support networks, and to adopting concerted strategies to facilitate problem solving and role adjustment. Couples would prefer six or seven dyadic meetings, each 60-90 minutes long, every 2 weeks, at an easily accessible location. This study affords avenues for the conceptualization of a psychoeducational nursing intervention intended for couples where a spouse has moderate-stage Parkinson disease.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".