Sensory processing disorder: Perceptions on the clinical role of advanced psychiatric nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No description of the clinical role of the advanced psychiatric nurse in the management of children with sensory processing disorder could be found for the South African context. This is a loss in clinical nursing practice with regard to diagnosis, treatment and research. AIM: To explore and clarify the perceptions of healthcare professionals in South Africa on the clinical role of the advanced psychiatric nurse in sensory processing disorder to provide a description of this role. SETTING: The research was conducted by inviting registered healthcare professionals practicing in South Africa to complete several rounds of an on-line survey. METHODS: An explorative and descriptive design was used. Purposive sampling was used to identify an initial sample of healthcare professionals, followed by snowball sampling. The Delphi technique was implemented with three sequential rounds, gathering data on the perceptions of the healthcare professionals regarding the clinical role of the advanced psychiatric nurse in sensory processing disorder. RESULTS: The following main themes crystallised from the data - (1) Specialised training of the advanced psychiatric nurse (APN) on sensory processing disorder; (2) Interventions carried out by the APN with regard to sensory processing disorder; (3) Adequate support to the family with regard to sensory processing disorder; and (4) Referral of a child with sensory processing disorder. CONCLUSION: The study indicates that the healthcare professionals who are experts in delivering healthcare to children with sensory processing disorder agree that the APN with additional training in this condition has a clinical role to play in rendering healthcare to these healthcare users. A preliminary clinical role description could be formulated. Recommendations for nursing practice, nursing education and further research were formulated.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".