Estrutura de famílias de pacientes com câncer em cuidados paliativos: estudo à luz do Modelo Calgary de Avaliação Familiar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Palliative care is a therapeutic modality with an interdisciplinary approach consisting of a set of actions aimed at patients with life-threatening diseases, aiming to improve the quality of life and dignity of patients and their families. Objective: To evaluate the structure of families of cancer patients in palliative care, in the light of the Calgary Model. Methodology: This is a qualitative field research, developed in a philanthropic institution, located in the city of João Pessoa, Paraíba. The study included six families and cancer patients in palliative care. Structural assessment of the families of cancer patients under palliative care was performed. For data collection, the instruments recommended by the family assessment model used to delineate the internal and external structures of the family were used: genogram and ecomap. The empirical material was analyzed in light of the Calgary Family Assessment Model. As it is a research involving human beings, the requirements proposed by the National Health Council / Ministry of Health, through Resolution No. 466/2012, were considered. Results: the family evaluation of the six families studied allowed us to understand the main aspects related to the internal and external structures, as well as the family context. In addition to this aspect, the patients' bonds and their relationships in the family nucleus and the environment where they are inserted were identified, presenting the support network and the reorganization of family dynamics after the illness of their family members. Conclusion: The Calgary Family Assessment Model can be applied to diagnose the family structure of patients in palliative care, especially those undergoing cancer treatment, aiming to improve care and quality of life of the patient and family.
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 | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".