Public Health Nurses' Endeavours with Families Using the 15 Minute Interview/nga Mahi Nui a Nga Tapuhi Ki Nga Whanau Ma Te Whakamahi I Te Uiui 15 Meneti Te Roa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionFor over century public health nurses (PHNs) in New Zealand (NZ) have practiced in urban and rural communities, advocating for and promoting health and wellbeing for people and families (Ministry of Health [MOH], 2013). In recent years the focus has narrowed to the health and wellbeing of school aged children and their families (Hansen, Carryer, & Budge, 2007). A family-centered approach, the hall mark of PHNs' practice (Garlick, 2006; Yarwood, 2008; McMurray & Clendon, 2015) mirrors the primacy given to family in Canada (Doane & Varcoe, 2005; Holtslander, 2005; Martinez, D'Artois, & Rennick, 2007; Wright & Leahey, 2013) in America (Denham, 2003) and more recently in Finland (ÂstedtKurki, 2010) with family systems nursing being introduced into Landspitali University hospital, Iceland (Svavardottir, 2008; Svavardottir, Tryggvadottir, & Sigurdardottir, 2012).Public health nurses embrace wide spectrum of health needs from well-functioning families with minor child health/behavioral concerns, to families coping with long term health conditions, with limited material and/or personal resources and resiliencies (Browne, Doane, Reimer, MacLeod, & McLellan, 2010), including those marginalised by ethnicity, poor housing and low socio-economic status. A recent NZ Child Poverty report found growing number of families in need, with 285,000 children living in unacceptable poverty (MMResearch, 2014) indicating PHNs response may include addressing and alleviating the effects of poverty and its pervasive health related sequela (MOH, 2013).Public health nurses have the expertise and skills to work relationally with each family, to listen, negotiate and formulate way forward without judgement. Navigating such complex and demanding work can be facilitated by utilizing relevant assessment tools and models (Mahoney, 2010), one of which is Wright and Leahey's (1999) 15 minute family interview that includes an ecomap and genogram. These tools became the focus of qualitative study exploring PHNs use of the 15 minute interview, the findings of which are reported in this article.Literature reviewBased on the well-known Calgary Family Assessment Model and Calgary Family Intervention model (Wright & Leahey, 2013) the 15 minute family interview offers pragmatic framework for nurses committed to involving families in their practice, within an increasingly time constrained health care environment (Wright & Leahey, 1999). It is not, according to Holtslander (2005, p.5), a decontextualised nursing tool; rather it is flexible interview guide that is embedded in family nursing practice. Five components structure the 15 minute interview: Manners, those core social skills so necessary when interacting with people; Therapeutic conversations, those with purpose; Therapeutic questions, questions that enable transparency of family needs; Commendations, acknowledging family's strength and resources; and the use of genogram and ecomap. Apart from Wright and Leahey's development work (Wright & Leahey, 2013), there is paucity of literature exploring the use of the 15 minute interview (Bell, 2012). Whereas nurses may be aware of the importance of families in their practice, few, according to Holtslander, Solar and Smith, (2013) think 'family' in intervention. In an effort to improve family care and the bridge theory/practice gap in undergraduate education, Holtslander et al. (2013) explored the use of the 15 minute interview, an exercise which enhanced students' interaction and skills with families.Although no community based studies were found, two located in hospital settings demonstrated the use of the 15 minute interview. Set in postpartum unit, the first actively encouraged fathers to be involved in caring for the new family addition (Holtslander, 2005). Whereas the first study focused on the family member's response, the second, set in pediatric unit, examined nurses perceptions of the tool's value (Martinez et al. …
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".