A Necessary Evil? Patients’ Experiences Receiving Tube Feeding in Acute Care
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
BACKGROUND: Tube feeding (TF) is frequently prescribed for adults admitted to acute care facilities to prevent or ameliorate malnutrition, yet little is known about patients' needs and experiences with receiving this therapy. Patients' perspectives regarding the factors influencing their experiences, as well as their information and support needs, are required to inform healthcare providers' (HCPs') patient-centered practices. METHODS: Based on an interpretive description qualitative approach, 12 unstructured face-to-face interviews were conducted with participants admitted to acute care hospitals in Northwestern Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: Analysis of data revealed variations in participants' perceptions of the necessity for TF and the discomfort resulting from this therapy. Perceived necessity was influenced by interrelated themes: the meaning of TF (beyond necessity), the trust held in HCPs, and the resilience of participants in response to all that they were experiencing. Collectively, these findings are encompassed within the central theme, phrased as a question, about the experience of TF: "A necessary evil?" Participants' answers to this question revealed the nature of their overall response throughout TF therapy (ie, indifferent, resistant, relieved, or tolerant). CONCLUSIONS: The range of perceptions and the complexity of patients' experiences during TF revealed in the data can inform HCPs' patient-centered approaches to TF care. Assessing and incorporating patients' values, beliefs, needs, and goals into, and exploring their choices in, nutrition care planning can promote resilience in response to TF therapy. HCPs may then well enhance patients' comfort and overall experience with TF therapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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