MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384570632 · doi:10.5114/fmpcr.2023.127678

Enhancing family nursing practice: The effect of a supportive-educational programme on the family nursing practice, family satisfaction and family perceived support in the intensive care unit

2023· article· en· W4384570632 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M Sangi, Fatemeh Heshmati Nabavi, Hamid Heidarian Miri, Maliheh Nekouei Marvi Langari, Haji Abadi Fatemeh

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily Medicine & Primary Care Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMashhad University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsNursingMedicineNursing practiceFamily medicineUnit (ring theory)Psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

search, G -Funds CollectionBackground.The severity of the disease and the anxiety caused by working with a patient in a critical situation increase the need of supporting both families and nurses.Objectives.To evaluate the effect of implementing a supportive-educational programme for nurses on the family nursing practice, family satisfaction and family perceived support in the intensive care unit. Material and methods.A non-randomised intervention study was performed on 90 patients' family members and 72 intensive care unit nurses.The supportive-educational programme included a 6-hour face-to-face workshop for nurse managers to create a supportive work environment for nurses and a one-month online educational programme for nurses.The Family Nursing Practice Scale was completed by the nurses.The Family Satisfaction-ICU scale and ICE-Family Perceived Support Questionnaire were completed by the family members on the third and tenth day after the patient's hospitalisation.Results.A statistically significant difference was found between the mean score of family nursing practice before (Mean = 26.36,SD ± 4.9) and after the intervention (Mean = 20.66,SD ± 6.6).The mean score of family satisfaction on day 10 showed a statistically significant difference between the groups (intervention Mean = 73.97,SD ± 9.18, control group Mean = 92.15,SD ± 10.25).The mean score of the family perceived support was significantly different in both groups on the third day of hospitalisation (intervention Mean = 45.15,SD ± 9.18 and control group Mean = 48.4,SD ± 4.98) and on the tenth day of hospitalisation (intervention Mean = 43.84,SD ± 6.48 and control group Mean = 53, SD ± 4.29).Conclusions.simultaneous support and training of nurses working in the intensive care unit can increase the desired outcomes related to the patient's family by improving their performance in relation to the family.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily Medicine & Primary Care ReviewSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207