Family Structure Assessment Of Patients In Palliative Home Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to examine the family structure of patients in palliative home care in the light of the Calgary Family Assessment Model (CFAM). This is a qualitative research, conducted in the residences of patients enrolled in the Palliative Care Unit and Pain Treatment (PCUP) of a university hospital located in Recife/Pernambuco, Brazil, in the period from May to July 2014. The sample consisted of five patients enrolled in the PCUP and five family caregivers. Data collection was performed through an interviewing technique using two instruments: the genogram and eco-map. The empirical material was analyzed in the light of the Calgary Model of Family Assessment. The application of the Model demonstrated external family structure relationship with the non-existent neighborhood; support network in diverse health, with very strong relationship with the PCUP highlighting the link with nursing professional; weak relationship concerning Basic Health Unit and strong connection to the church. The obtained data suggest that each researched family has demands to be thought of as focus of nursing care and have faith as a resource for coping with the disease. It follows that the application of CFAM has highlighted the intra-family ties and the relations established with the support networks, signaling strategies to optimize patient care without a therapeutic possibility of cure and their family.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".