MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916893102 · doi:10.1177/2333393619900891

Connecting With Adolescent Mothers: Perspectives of Hospital-Based Perinatal Nurses

2020· article· en· W2916893102 on OpenAlexaff
Ashley Quosdorf, Wendy E. Peterson, Judy Rashotte, Barbara Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Qualitative Nursing Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingPerspective (graphical)MedicineNursing carePsychologyDescriptive researchFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adolescent mothers are more likely to be dissatisfied with their perinatal nursing care than adult mothers. The purpose of this interpretive descriptive study was to explore adolescent-friendly care from the perspective of hospital-based perinatal nurses. Twenty-seven interviews were conducted with nurses with expertise caring for adolescent mothers. Open-ended questions were used to determine how they adapted their nursing practice when caring for adolescents, how they learned to provide adolescent-friendly care, and the facilitators and barriers to providing adolescent-friendly care. Nurses described two main goals: (a) delivering a positive experience and (b) ensuring mother and infant safety. They accomplished these goals by being nonjudgmental, forming a connection, and individualizing nursing care. The nurses described being mother-friendly, regardless of maternal age, and employing strategies to develop a nurse-adolescent mother therapeutic relationship. This research contributes to our understanding of how hospital-based perinatal nurses engage and support adolescent mothers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.253
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Qualitative Nursing ResearchSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207