Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study has as its central theme of discussion grief experienced by families whose loved ones were organ donors. It discusses the need for health professionals to know the stages of grief and subtlety to perceive them approaching in moments with family, valuable tool in the care process, especially in the face of death. This research aimed to assist the family in the grieving process after organ donation. Specifically, the objective is also to describe the stories of the families of organ donors, focusing on the experiences of loss and the donation process, analyze the coping process of grieving family after organ donation and analyze how the home visit strategy to promote the health of families in mourning. It is a qualitative research and used the Topical History of life. The site was the area north of the state of Ceará, where 39 were identified multiple organ donors in the period from 2009 to 2011, being the home visit strategy and careful data collection with eight families who agreed to participate. Were described topical stories of families and analyzed their grief: identified the family structure, development and its functionality at Calgary Family Assessment Model. This study provides contributions for health professionals, mainly nurses about the importance of care for the person grieving process, necessitating a revision of practices that inhibit the exposure of feelings, policies foster care in institutions and effective practice home visits as a method of family care. Moreover, this approach between family and staff is an opportunity for professionals to review their practices, their weaknesses and therapeutic possibilities. This process would provide the constant construction of shared care. In this sense, it signals the need also to work with the vision of promoting the mental health of families in mourning, as for the pain of loss, the embrace caregiver is the starting point.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".