Using a phenomenological description excerpt about the nurse-patient relationship at the end of life as a means to improve the relational competence of nursing students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an Australia-Canada study aiming to improve access to primary health care (PHC) for vulnerable groups through organizational transformation (2013)(2014)(2015)(2016)(2017)(2018), six evidence-based interventions were adapted and implemented locally.This poster presents qualitative findings from the mixed methods research protocol developed to evaluate the interventions.Composed of semi-structured interviews with providers (service providers, family doctors, nurses) and patient or attendee, these explore experiences, knowledge, and expectations of access to PHC and postintervention changes.Our findings focus on Canadian findings only.Across Canada, provider data show their desire to work collaboratively, yet what collaborative team work means remains nebulous.PHC providers also express feeling alone with patients whose needs go beyond the scope of their knowledge and expertise and "abandoned" by the system, "not knowing what the government expects of them."Patient data report feelings of vulnerability, difficulty to trust, and fear of stigma and judgment yet strong resilience.Users feel and want to be heard and acknowledged as "people" and with knowledge and experience worthy of consideration.Finally, while two interventions addressed patients without a regular care provider at baseline, feelings of vulnerability were also present in attached patients who expressed vulnerability toward an individual sole provider who may leave unexpectedly.Postintervention data show that the interventions helped in addressing these issues; our poster reports on "how."The poster completes an exploration of findings with lessons learnt from these three interventions, methodological design and insights, and next steps in improving access to 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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".