Terminological Usage Related to Dyspnea by Nursing Staff: A Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, additional expressions such as 'sensation of breathing discomfort' and 'discomfort of dyspnea' are being used in daily nursing care in Japan. To better understand the current status of the use of these terms by nurses, and to ascertain what the term 'dyspnea' may not express, we designed an original questionnaire and conducted a study with all nurses at our hospital. The questionnaire included questions to determine if nurses used these terms, and in what context. Of the 279 nurses in our hospital, 225 (80.6%) responded. Three-quarters of nurses indicated that they use these terms in clinical nursing practice. There was no difference in the usage of these terms between nurses who had or had not worked in a respiratory outpatients/ward. However, the percentage of nurses using these terms was higher amongst those with 10 years or less nursing experience compared with those with more than 10 years' experience. Open-ended questions revealed that these terms were used to communicate information between nurses and between nurses and patients' families. Our observations need to be verified in large-scale studies to determine if these terms are meaningful for nursing practice in that they describe something not expressed with 'dyspnea'. There is the possibility of confusion due to the use of inappropriate terms and a lack of education on the subject. Many nurses used these terms, and there may be things that the term 'dyspnea' could not express. The results of this study can be used to identify something that is lacking in communication about dyspnea between nurses, nurses and patients, and nurses and patients' 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".