Omani Families Caring for a Member with Mental Illness: A Descriptive Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this qualitative descriptive study was to gain an in depth understanding and knowledge regarding how Omani families care for a member with mental illness including how they supported the later in self-care activities. Data was collected from participants using a purposive sample consisting of ten family caregivers whose member was in Sultan Qaboos University Hospital in Muscat. Each caregiver participated in one semi-structured interview. The interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The findings included two major themes: The first theme was “caring and empowering with empathy, love, and understanding.” The second theme was “self-denial and giving without limitations.” In conclusion, Omani family caregivers for a mentally ill family member provided optimum level of care to help and empower their family members to manage the mental illness. However, in so doing, those caregivers denied and neglected themselves for taking care of their mentally ill members. Several appropriate clinical interventions and policies are needed to support those family caregivers, to create a situation recently referred to as becoming “care partners.”
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".