Instrumentos de Avaliação de Rede e Apoio Social: uma Revisão Integrativa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O presente estudo tem o objetivo de identificar na literatura os instrumentos utilizados para avaliação da rede e do apoio social. Trata-se de uma revisão integrativa, com pesquisa no Portal da Biblioteca Virtual de Saúde (BVS), por meio de descritores: “apoio social” e “rede social” e os termos chave “rede de apoio” e “instrumento”, o cruzamento dos descritores e dos termos chave foi realizado empregando o operador booleano “AND”. Foram inclusos dez artigos completos em português, publicados entre 2015-2019, que contemplavam os critérios de inclusão e a questão norteadora desta pesquisa. Foram identificados os seguintes instrumentos: questionário adaptado utilizado no estudo de Sant’ana e D’elboux, Medical Outcomes Study (MOS), Instrumento de Medida da Rede e Apoio Social, Modelo Calgary de Avaliação de Família (MCAF), Instrumento pré-elaborado com base no MCAF, entrevistas semiestruturadas e observação participante, com registro em diário de campo, utilizados por De Oliveira e colaboradores, Formulário adaptado utilizado por Marchetti, Próspero e Vendruscolo, Instrumento utilizado por Vilela, Arreguy-Sena e Pinto, Instrumento adaptado por Morais, Ribeiro e Paes, Instrumento sociodemográfico adaptado e estratégia de Situações Estruturadas de Investigação (SEI) e Entrevista semiestruturada do estudo de Borges e colaboradores. A avaliação da rede e do apoio social é importante para o profissional da saúde identificar elementos que podem participar do processo de cuidado do paciente, incluir fatores protetores, aumentar adesão ao tratamento e fornecer um cuidado integral, centrado no paciente e em sua rede, com a criação de planos terapêuticos específicos sendo, dessa forma, necessária a identificação de instrumentos de avaliação. Palavras-chave: Apoio Social. Rede Social. Rede de Apoio. Abstract This study aims to identify in the literature the instruments used to evaluate the network and social support. This is an integrative review, with research on the Virtual Health Library (VHL) Portal, using the keywords "social support" and "social network" and the key terms "support network" and "instrument", the crossing descriptors and key terms were performed using the Boolean operator “AND”. 10 full articles in Portuguese, published between 2015-2019, were included, which included the inclusion criteria and the guiding question of this research. The following instruments were identified: Adapted questionnaire used in the study of Sant'ana and D'elboux, Medical Outcomes Study (MOS), Network Measurement and Social Support Instrument, Calgary Family Assessment Model (MCAF), pre-elaborated instrument based on the MCAF, semi-structured interviews and participant observation, recorded in a field diary, used by De Oliveira and collaborators, Form adapted used by Marchetti, Próspero and Vendruscolo, Instrument used by Vilela, Arreguy-Sena and Pinto, Instrument adapted by Morais, Ribeiro e Paes, Adapted sociodemographic instrument and Structured Investigative Situations (SEI) strategy and Semi-structured interview in the study by Borges and collaborators. The evaluation of the network and social support is important for the health professional to identify elements that can participate in the patient care process, include protective factors, increase adherence to treatment and provide comprehensive care, centered on the patient and his or her network, with the creation of specific therapeutic plans, thus requiring the identification of assessment instruments. Keywords: Social Support. Social Network. Support Network.
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 | 0.081 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".