Exploring Patient and Caregiver Perceptions of Primary Healthcare Sector Home Care for Simple Acute Wounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GENERAL PURPOSE: To provide information about a study exploring patient and caregiver perceptions of home wound care for patients with simple acute wounds in Singapore. TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES: After completing this continuing education activity, you should be able to:1. Assess benefits and barriers to home wound care management.2. Analyze the methodology, results, and implications of the study. ABSTRACT: To control healthcare expenditure, patients with simple, acute, low-risk wounds are encouraged to perform self-wound care at home. However, patient perception of this care is not known. OBJECTIVE: To explore patient and caregiver perceptions of home wound care for patients with simple acute wounds in the primary healthcare sector in Singapore. METHODS: This study used the constructivist grounded theory approach. Nine participants from 2 polyclinics were interviewed. In vivo codes were extracted, and the constant comparative technique was applied throughout the analytical process. RESULTS: Fear, lack of knowledge, and the difficulty in performing care resulted in many patients avoiding self-wound care. Age, educational level, and cost did not have much impact. Participants with some first aid knowledge and those who appreciated the flexibility of self-wound care were more likely to embrace this concept. Participants also suggested that telecommunications and mobile nurses could assist in this concept. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, patients are willing to accept this self-wound care concept. To ensure successful implementation, nurses should encourage eligible patients to attend educational programs to prepare them to perform wound care at home.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".