MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Relationships between Nurses and Family Caregivers: Partners in Care?

2000· article· en· W2331378520 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Ward‐Griffin, Patricia McKeever

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Nursing Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingQualitative researchPsychologyFamily caregiversNursing practiceMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing reliance on family care of elderly people at home calls for a critical analysis of the relationship between formal and informal caregivers. Although much has been written about how health professionals and family caregivers should relate to one another, we know very little about the relationships that develop between them. Using data from a qualitative study, this article illustrates that relationships between community nurses and family members caring for frail elders are complex, dynamic, and multifaceted. Shifting boundaries in caring work leads to changes in nurse-family caregiver relationships, which can be categorized as four distinct, yet interconnected, types: (1) nurse-helper, (2) worker-worker, (3) manager-worker, and (4) nurse-patient. Each type is described, and implications for nursing practice and research are discussed.

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)0.001
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 score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.380 · 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

Citations171
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Nursing ScienceSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207