Patient advocacy in valuing social and family being in times of COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective to understand the strategies used by intensive care nurses in the face of situations that required patient advocacy, involving the appreciation of social and family being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method this is a qualitative, descriptive and exploratory study, carried out in the five regions of Brazil. A total of 25 intensive care nurses participated in the study. Data were collected through a semi-structured interview and subsequently subjected to discursive textual analysis. Results nurses advocated before the health team and for the family’s presence within the Intensive Care Unit. With the COVID-19 pandemic, new strategies were established to advocate, promoting virtual rapprochement between nurses, patients and family members as well as the permanence of family members in intensive care environments when necessary so that nurses could know patients better and integrate the family into care. Conclusion and implications for practice the strategies used to act on behalf of patients were carried out for rapprochement between nurses and family members; for instructing family members to advocate for patients; and for the defense of family presence within the Intensive Care Unit.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".