Exploration of the advanced preparation nurse‐mother role in care of children with chronic disease: A narrative inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To explore the lived experience of advanced preparation nurses (APNs) who are mothers (APN-mothers) as they seek care in the Emergency Department for a child with a chronic disease. DESIGN: Qualitative, Narrative Inquiry. METHODS: Narrative Inquiry was used to examine critical self-reflections of four (n = 4) APN-mothers. Directed by a question guide, participants engaged in the Narrative Reflective Process through metaphoric and artistic means. RESULTS: Participants identified salient challenges associated with their experiences. Narrative threads that emerged include feelings around being discovered, unfair expectations by healthcare providers, feelings of guilt and the tension from competing roles: APN and mother. CONCLUSION: APN-mothers represent a unique population with enhanced knowledge, skills and judgement; however, they indicate that there is insufficient communication and interprofessional collaboration between parents and Emergency Department staff. Further research is needed to foster and improve therapeutic relationships between APN-mothers and healthcare providers. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Findings can inform the development of family centred care guidelines for healthcare professional parents and their children. IMPACT: This study explores the experiences of an understudied population. This research will impact APN-mothers, healthcare professionals in the Emergency Department as well as nursing students and researchers. REPORTING METHOD: EQUATOR guidelines and SRQR reporting method used. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: APN-mothers, caregivers and support persons of children with chronic disease enacted investigator-participant roles and were involved in each step of the study process. In addition, some patients (participants' children with chronic diseases) were included in data collected.
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 | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".