Calgary Family Intervention Model-Based Family Support and Psychoeducation Related Intervention Experiences of Family Members Caring for Patients with a Chronic Mental Illness: “We Are All in the Same Boat”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the study, it was aimed to investigate the Calgary Family Intervention Model-based Family Support and Psychoeducation Intervention experiences of family members who cared for patients with a chronic mental illness. The sample of this study consisted of 15 caregivers of chronic psychiatric patients who participated in the Calgary Family Intervention Model-based family support and psychoeducation intervention and met the inclusion criteria. Data were collected through semi-structured questions and individual interviews. The interviews were recorded on a voice recorder. In the analysis of the data, content analysis was used. At the end of the study, the following four main themes were obtained: “we are all in the same boat,” “shared feelings and mutual learning,” “awareness and hope” and “suggestions.” The results obtained from the study indicate that cognitive and emotional support need of those who provide care for family members with a chronic mental illness is an important issue that should not be ignored. Creating environments where individuals with similar experiences can share their experiences and providing the support, they need are an important tool that reinforces their hope and awareness.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".