PERCEPTIONS OF COLOSTOMY PATIENTS ABOUT NURSING CARE IN ONCOLOGY INPATIENT UNITS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the perceptions of colorectal cancer patients using colostomy on the nursing care of the oncology inpatient units of a hospital in western Santa Catarina. Methods: Descriptive-exploratory study of qualitative approach carried out in the oncology inpatient units of the Hospital Regional do Oeste, in the period from January to August 2020, through a questionnaire containing sociodemographic data and semi-structured interview, applied to 20 patients with colorectal cancer using colostomy. The data were analyzed using Laurence Bardin’s Content Analysis. Results: The results indicated a prevalence of colostomy male patients, with a mean age of 60.25 years, married, retired, and with incomplete elementary education. From the qualitative analysis of the interviews emerged the category: patients’ perceptions of nursing care, which was subdivided into: nursing care with the bag and the stoma and nursing care during hospitalization. Conclusion: At the end of the survey, it is concluded that the colostomy patients perceive that the nursing staff performs the essential care of the bag and the stoma, including its exchange and hygiene during hospitalization, meeting the patients’ needs. In addition, they provide important guidance on the use of the devices, promoting health education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".