MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400240821 · doi:10.1080/02687038.2024.2373431

Aphasia and acute care: a qualitative study of family perspectives

2024· article· en· W4400240821 on OpenAlexaff
Nina Simmons‐Mackie, Aura Kagan, Guylaine Le Dorze, Elyse Shumway, Melodie T. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueAphasiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAphasiaPsychologyQualitative researchPsychotherapistPsychiatryNursingCognitive psychologyMedicineSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The early acute phase of hospitalization after the onset of aphasia is typically a challenging and stressful time for caregivers and family members of people with aphasia. During this time, it is particularly important to provide support and relevant information to family to reduce psychological distress and increase the likelihood of longer-term positive outcomes. However, families of people with aphasia often report a lack of support and information within the acute care setting and a generally negative experience.Aims To gather information and insights into the acute care experiences of families of people with aphasia as an early step in a larger project. The larger project was designed to improve the acute care experience for people with aphasia, families, and healthcare staff in a community teaching hospital.Methods A qualitative investigation including text-based questionnaires and in-person focus groups was conducted with 16 family members of people with aphasia. Thematic analysis was completed to identify experiences in early acute care. An additional 7 family members served as “checkers” to validate that the derived themes were consistent with their own experiences during acute hospitalization of their family member with aphasia.Results Six themes were identified that described shared experiences of the participants. The themes (drawing from quotes of participants) include: “At first it’s just survival”; “There’s nothing for the family”; “They did not use the word aphasia at the beginning”; “They did not give me any information about it [how to communicate]”; “They did not really communicate with him [the person with aphasia]”; “They do not want to give you hope”. The themes were endorsed by the family checkers.Conclusions This initial phase of a larger project found that participating families of people with aphasia were not given sufficient support or information, contributing to a largely negative experience of the early acute phase of care.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.013
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAphasiologySame topicNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFrench-language works237,207