Subjektive Versorgungsbedarfe nach Tracheostoma: Eine qualitativeStudie mit Patient*innen und stellvertretend befragtenAngehörigen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Diseases that impair breathing through the mouth and nose often necessitate the creation of a tracheostoma. This procedure is linked to complex care requirements. The present study investigates deficits in care as perceived subjectively by patients with a tracheostoma. Methods: A qualitative study design was employed, utilizing semi-structured interviews. Participants were recruited from a single center using theoretical and maximum variation sampling. For speech-limited and pediatric patients, their relatives were also interviewed. The interviews took place in the second quarter of 2024 and were recorded. The transcripts were then coded using thematic analysis, and the results were summarized into main themes. Results: A total of 33 individuals participated in the study (24 patients, including 2 pediatric patients, and 9 relatives). The subjective care deficits identified can be categorized into several themes: impairments related to the tracheostoma, lack of information about the tracheostoma, the desire for autonomy in self-care, social participation, provision of medical supplies, and navigation within the healthcare system. Conclusion: The identified care deficits mainly pertained to the need for information, the challenge of finding tracheostoma-competent physicians and nurses, and issues related to social participation. In contrast, medical aspects of tracheostoma care were discussed less in the interviews compared to organizational and psychosocial challenges.
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 | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".