Nursing guidelines for caregivers of children with congenital heart disease after discharge: Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To identify the nursing guidelines for caregivers of children with congenital heart disease (CHD) after hospital discharge. Methods: This is an integrative literature review of articles published between 2016 and 2022. In order to select the studies, the controlled descriptors "Nursing Care", "Nursing", "Heart Defects, Congenital", "Caregivers" and "Child" were used in four scientific databases - LILACS, SCIELO, PUBMED and BDENF. Results: The current integrative literature review analyzed 11 articles from the original sample. The main nursing care issues are those related to nutrition, oral health, leisure and physical activity, care with medication and the surgical wound, as well as the need to offer support to these children's families. The authors emphasize that nurses are present at various moments in a child's life, including at birth, but the approach to CHD is scarce in their basic training as nurses, as well as in their professional practice, and there is a shortage of continuing education proposals for the care of children with CHD. Conclusion: The study showed that nursing guidelines are focused on basic care and family support for these children. Lastly, this study highlighted the important role of nurses in terms of consolidating guidelines on the care needs of these children.
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 | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".