PRIORITY NEEDS REFERRED BY FAMILIES OF RARE DISEASE PATIENTS
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
ABSTRACT Rare diseases cause strong impact in families and generate needs beyond those associated with the most frequent diseases. Some of these needs are the inclusion of new responsibilities and the relationship with the healthcare and social services. This study is aimed at identifying the priority needs of families of rare disease patients as perceived from the time of diagnosis. This is a qualitative study conducted with 16 relatives of rare disease patients who live in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Data were collected from November 2012 to March 2013, through semi-structured interviews and submitted to content analysis, based on the bioecological system of human development. The results indicated the following priority needs: access to social and healthcare services; knowledge about rare diseases; social support structures; acceptance and social integration; preservation of personal and family life. It was concluded that (re)organizing services and meeting the specific needs are preconditions to qualify nursing care and soften the impact the rare disease has on the 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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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