Empowering Nurses to Provide Humanized Care in Canadian Hospital Care Units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have reported a conflict between nurses' motivation to provide humanized care and practical requirements impeding them from doing so. This exploratory descriptive qualitative study aimed to explore nurses' perspectives on humanized care, the challenges they face, and, most importantly, their recommendations to overcome these barriers. Semistructured individual interviews were conducted with 17 auxiliary and registered nurses working in various health care units in a Canadian hospital. Participants demonstrated a good understanding of what humanized care covers and entails. They also described it as the very core of their profession and main source of job satisfaction. However, nurses reported that they are confronted with organizational barriers, mainly a lack of staff, the burden of administrative tasks, unsuitable physical environments or equipment, and little managerial support. Nurses stressed the need for a cultural change in managerial practices in order to be able to improve their provision of humanized care. Based on the findings, 4 structuring recommendations were identified: adopting an institutional policy promoting the implementation of humanized care, incorporating humanized care in nurses' tasks and procedures, improving participatory management, and ensuring adequate staffing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.176 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".