Creating a space to talk about one's experience of suffering: families’ experience of a family nursing intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY RATIONALE: The impacts of health problems on individual and family functioning, as well as the influence of family on health, are well documented. However, health care and services in the West are mostly oriented towards individuals, and the needs of families often receive little consideration. The Family Support Service (FSS) was developed to address this situation. Its aim is to improve the education of nursing students and contribute to the health of the community by offering family conversations to families whose members have a health problem or who have difficulty adjusting to certain transitions. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to explore families' experience of the family conversations in which they participated and their satisfaction with the FSS. METHODOLOGICAL DESIGN AND JUSTIFICATION: This study used a descriptive qualitative design based on semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis. The study followed ethical codes of conduct and conformed to the Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS). RESEARCH METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 22 participants who had participated in family conversations as interventions, to evaluate their experience of those family conversations and their satisfaction with the FSS. RESULTS: The families reported a very positive experience of the family conversations. Three themes emerged from their statements and explained this satisfaction: (i) the nurse's attitudes and skills as the foundation for meaningful encounters; (ii) a family systems intervention where families feel recognised; and (iii) a structure adapted to the needs of families. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to the existing body of knowledge on families' experience of family system nursing and invites nurses to develop attitudes that are conducive to meaningful encounters with families.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".