Patients' and clinicians' experiences of wound care in Canada: a descriptive qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to explore patients' and clinicians' perceptions and experiences with the provision of standard care by a home care nurse alone or by a multidisciplinary wound care team. METHOD: The interviews were conducted using an in-depth semi structured format; following a funnel idea of starting out broad and narrowing down, ensuring that all the necessary topics were covered by the end of the interview. RESULTS: A purposive sample of 16 patients with different wound types were interviewed to ensure that the data would reflect the range and diversity of treatment and care experience. To reflect the diversity of experiences 12 clinicians from various clinical backgrounds were interviewed. Based on the analysis of the interviews, there are four overarching themes: wound care expertise is required across health-care sectors, psychosocial needs of patients with chronic wounds are key barriers to treatment concordance, structured training, and a well-coordinated multidisciplinary team approach. CONCLUSION: Results of this qualitative study identified different barriers and facilitators that affect the experiences of community-based 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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".