Retrato da atuação profissional das enfermeiras em unidade de terapia intensiva COVID-19: revisão integrativa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: analisar e integrar as evidências científicas acerca do conhecimento produzido em termos de cuidado, saúde ocupacional, física e emocional por enfermeiras que atuam em Unidade de Terapia Intensiva COVID-19. Método: revisão integrativa de literatura realizada no PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, Scopus, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature e na Biblioteca Virtual da Saúde, em março de 2022. Resultados: os dados extraídos de 39 artigos foram integrados em três temas: a saúde física e emocional das enfermeiras na unidade de terapia intensiva; a saúde ocupacional dos trabalhadores das unidades de terapia intensiva COVID-19; a revolução no cuidado de Enfermagem em tempos de COVID-19. Conclusão: durante a pandemia da COVID-19, enfermeiras atuando em unidades de terapia intensiva foram expostas a longas jornadas e condições inadequadas de trabalho. As enfermeiras atuaram buscando novas tecnologias para promover o cuidado e também como defensoras dos direitos dos pacientes.
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 | 0.040 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".