,,It overtook my body and soul“: The experience of individuals receiving health-promoting service, of psychological trauma and health-related problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Accumulating evidence shows that those having experienced psychological trauma have increased risk of complex health problems. In primary health care health-promoting services are offered to individuals with complex health problems, based on an individualized approach. Trauma focused approach in healthcare help individuals increase quality of life after psychological trauma. Trauma focused services are important to help improve quality of life after psychological trauma. To examine the experience of psychological trauma and health-related problems in individuals receiving health-promoting services. METHOD: Qualitative research based on the Vancouver School of phenomenology. Participants were ten, five male and five female, selected through health-promoting services. Two interviews were taken with each participant. The ACE questionnaire was used, as a screening tool for childhood psychological trauma, combined with interview-frame with open questions. RESULTS: The results were divided into six main themes: Experience of trauma; Repeated trauma; Childhood neglect; Health-related problems in child- and adulthood; Psychiatric problems in child- and adulthood; Processing and trauma-focused approach. Participants had experienced conciderable trauma as well as complex health problems in child- and adulthood. CONCLUSIONS: It is of importance that healthcare professionals pay attention to psychological traumas in relation to complex health problems to provide support for recovery. Primary health care is the first place of contact within the health care system and therefore it is important that patients' experience of trauma is taken into account. It is key to identify the signs of lifetime trauma in relation to health problems and focus the care according to the individual needs of the patient.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".