Barriers and facilitators to family participation in the care of their hospitalized loved ones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study’s objective was to better understand family members’ experiences in order to identify how healthcare organizations can facilitate their participation in the care of a hospitalized loved one. Eighteen individuals at the bedside of a hospitalized loved one were interviewed individually. Roles at the bedside and factors that facilitated their participation or represented barriers were examined. A qualitative analysis using a mixed inductive/deductive approach was performed. Reassurance and emotional support, as well as sharing information with the healthcare team emerged as main roles. Quality and timeliness of the information received about the patient’s condition, prognosis and changes in medical condition, as well as information on how to participate in their care, were the factors most frequently evoked as facilitating participation. On the other hand, the need to improve communication channels and access to doctors were highlighted. Most family members having no prior knowledge or exposure to healthcare environments reported feeling overwhelmed in this foreign environment. Among the suggestions on how to improve their experience, having a well-identified contact person who liaises with them and who can instruct them on how to participate in care during hospitalization and back at home was frequently suggested. Furthermore, many mentioned that recognizing the experiential knowledge they have of the patient allows for more holistic care and contributes to improve both patient and family experience. Families need to be adequately recognized and supported and have access to information in a timely manner so that their contribution to their loved one’s care is maximized and the burden associated with this stressful experience alleviated.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".