L’expérience des soins des personnes qui vivent une transplantation hépatique. Recherche phénoménologique descriptive au sein d’un hôpital académique belge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to describe and understand the care experience for people having undergone a liver transplantation in a Belgian academic hospital and the elements of an ideal care experience for them. The descriptive phenomenological method of the « Relational Caring Inquiry » was used with twelve participants whose stories were collected through three semi-structured individual interviews. These interviews gave an overall picture of their care experience, summarized as « the feeling of having benefited from the support of both the body and mind in a Humanist-Caring dynamic, but with difficulties linked to organizational and environmental factors in finding a new balance. » The essence of their ideal care experience consists of « benefiting from the support of both the body and mind by competent professionals, in a Humanist-Caring climate and a dynamic of partnership with the patient, in an institution that is welcoming in terms of its organization and environment. » Based on these results, it seems essential to limit organizational constraints to consolidate the Humanist-Caring dynamic, to develop the patient partnership, and to pay special attention to the patient’s relatives, resulting in structured support.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".