Observing the influence of the physical environment on family involvement in a rehabilitation setting.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Health professionals and institutions need to understand how to facilitate family involvement within settings designed prior to the adoption of patient- and family-centered philosophies. This study sought to explore how the physical environment of an inpatient rehabilitation setting influenced family involvement in health care delivery. METHOD: We conducted this study on the inpatient acquired brain injury ward of a Canadian adult rehabilitation center. This study used a basic interpretive qualitative approach. We conducted observations of how the physical environment influenced the conversations, interactions, and activities, which were central to family involvement, in this setting. We used a systematic qualitative analysis method. This study received research ethics board approval prior to commencing. RESULTS: We conducted 26 2-hr observation sessions. Five sessions occurred in the morning, 17 in early and late afternoon, and 4 in the evening. Eighteen sessions occurred on a weekday and 8 on a weekend day. The following 6 categories emerged from the field data: (a) accessing health professionals, (b) awareness of family presence, (c) facilitating family presence, (d) facilitating patient-family activities, (e) providing information for families, and (f) facilitating family involvement in therapy. DISCUSSION: This study provided information to inform future discussions and strategies for facilitating family involvement within the existing physical environments of health care institutions. Initial steps should consider ways to help families feel welcomed, such as including additional seating in spaces, posting signage inviting families into spaces, having resources tailored to families readily available, and creating a visible sign-in/sign-out board for families. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".