Professional intimacy in nursing practice: A concept analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper provides a critical analysis of the concept of professional intimacy in nursing practice. BACKGROUND: Professional intimacy is a key attribute to the therapeutic nurse-patient relationship. However, there is a lack of clarity on the concept from a nursing perspective and little research has been done to explore the multiple dimensions of professional intimacy. Because of this, there is tentativeness in enacting and openly discussing this concept. DESIGN: The concept analysis approach of Walker and Avant (2011) was used to guide this manuscript. REVIEW METHODS: The eight steps described by Walker and Avant (2011) were implemented to identify antecedents, defining attributes, empirical referents, and consequences of professional intimacy using the literature published both historically and currently. RESULTS: The review identified 11 articles and based on analysis of the included articles, professional intimacy is the therapeutic relationship between a nurse and a patient that fosters closeness, self-disclosure, reciprocity, and trust at physical, psychological, and/or spiritual levels. CONCLUSION: This concept analysis shows that professional intimacy influences nursing satisfaction and promotes optimal patient outcomes. Nurses need to recognize that professional intimacy does not involve a crossing of professional boundaries and is vital to quality care.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it