Family Nursing Therapeutic Conversations in Heart Failure Outpatient Clinics in Denmark
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
As part of the Heart Failure Family Trial presently being conducted in Denmark, this qualitative process evaluation explored the perceptions of seven practicing cardiac nurses who offered family nursing therapeutic conversations (FNTC) to families in three heart failure outpatient clinics. FNTC were guided by the Calgary Family Assessment and Intervention Models. Data consisted of 34 case reports written by the nurses which documented the use of FNTC, including family responses to the FNTC. A focus group interview with the six of the nurses about their experience of offering FNTC was also conducted. Content analysis was performed using a combined deductive and inductive process. Nurses reported developing a distinct, closer, and more constructive relationship with the patients and their families and reported FNTC increased family bonding and strengthened family relationships. The nurses considered FNTC to be feasible interventions in the routine care provided in heart failure outpatient clinics.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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