Non healing leg ulcers and the nurse–patient relationship. Part 1: the patient’s perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper reports on a study that explored the relationship between patients with non healing leg ulcers and the nurses providing their care in a community setting. Qualitative data were collected from five patients whose leg ulcers were healing and who had been identified as experiencing difficulty with adhering to treatment. Single semi‐structured interviews were used and participants were asked to share key events in their care prompted by the question ‘how are you coping with your leg ulcer?’ Striving to maintain balance by developing strategies to cope with the physical effects of an unhealed ulcer as well as ensuring the care they received met their unique needs was central to the experience of participants. From the participant’s perspective, however, nurses often showed little understanding of the complex issues patients were grappling with. Patients, in viewing nurse behaviour, often concluded that leg ulceration was an insignificant problem that nurses had little interest in. The need to establish and to maintain a trusting therapeutic relationship with patients is essential if they are to feel they matter, that they are important as individuals and that their suffering can be eased by sensitive collaboration.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".