THE MEANING OF THE CLIENT-NURSE RELATIONSHIP FOR SENIOR HOME CARE CLIENTS WITH CHRONIC DISEASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose o f this study was to acquire an in-depth understanding o f the meaning o f the\nclient-nurse relationship for seniors with chronic disease receiving in-home care. In this phenomenological study, eight participants aged 65 to 86 years, were purposefully selected from the SW-CCAC in London, Ontario. Narrative data were collected through audio-taped, in-depth interviews using a semi-structured interview guide. The analysis and interpretation of the interviews revealed that the meaning of the client-nurse relationship for these seniors encompassed two patterns: having comfort and being connected within this relationship. These two patterns of the meaning of the client-nurse relationship were contextualized by being a senior with chronic disease and socially constructed through the relational experience of enacting a positive relationship. Although further research is needed, the insights gained add to what is known about the theory and practice of relational health promotion for seniors living with chronic disease receiving in-home 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 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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".