Doing the right thing: using hermeneutic phenomenology to understand management of wound pain.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the availability of assessment tools, analgesic medications, and technologically advanced dressings, achieving adequate pain control in wound care continues to present challenges for healthcare practitioners, patients, and their families. Pain in general has been the subject of much clinical and scientific investigation, but most has focused on the biological aspects of pain management. The psychological aspects of pain management and factors stemming from the relationship between caregivers and care recipients have received less attention. Relational issues are particularly relevant when dealing with medical procedures that involve a caregiver actively touching a care recipient. This paper explores pain management in chronic wound care, particularly at dressing change, with an emphasis on the relational aspects of care. Work from a recently completed hermeneutic phenomenological study of 18 registered nurses performing wound care in long-term, acute, and community care suggests strengthening the therapeutic relationship between patient and nurse may have a positive impact on healthcare providers' pain management practices and patient quality of life. Although nursing was the focus of the study, the observations provided are relevant for any clinician providing hands-on, compassionate wound care.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".