Patients’ Perspectives of Pain, Time, and Hope When Living with Venous Leg Ulcers and Using the geko™ Device: A Qualitative Descriptive Inquiry.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Venous leg ulcers have an impact on individuals’ perspectives of pain, time, and hope. Community nurses seek to provide person-centred care to patients living with venous leg ulcers. There is a paucity of research exploring individuals’ experiences while living with leg ulcers, specifically their insights into the role of a neuromuscular electrostimulation medical device (geko™). Methods: Using a qualitative descriptive approach and telephone interviews, seven participants shared their experiences living with venous leg ulcers and when using a geko™ device. Research ethics was approved, and informed client consent obtained. Thematic analysis method was utilized to analyze the data. Interviews were typed verbatim and analysis focused on a data-driven approach, leading themes emerged. Results: Participants described regular use of pain medications. They described the concept of ‘time’ from the onset of the venous leg ulcer, through wound reoccurrences, and treatments. Participants described feeling hopeful the geko™ device would support wound healing and assist the wound to become smaller and heal faster. Conclusions: This small qualitative study adds to a growing body of literature focused on the role of the geko™ adjunctive therapy in venous leg ulcer healing. More research is needed to understand the role of adjunctive therapies as they may offer patients' hope and create optimism toward wound healing as part of multi-modal treatment approach. Keywords: geko™, individual perspectives, qualitative descriptive, pain, time, hope
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 | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".