Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31107188›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being2019

Practical nursing students' discursive practices on smoking in Finland.

Hanna Aho, Ilkka Pietilä, Katja Joronen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Diversity, preventive work and education-matters of health and well-being in firefighter discourse.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Hanna Ahoa Faculty of Social Science , Health Sciences, University of Tampere , Tampere , Finland.
Ilkka Pietiläc Faculty of Social Sciences, Social and Public Policy , University of Helsinki , Helsinki , Finland.
Katja Joronena Faculty of Social Science , Health Sciences, University of Tampere , Tampere , Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeBased on focus groups, we analyse how practical nursing students deal with being as smokers and future healthcare workers. The way they justify their smoking is discussed within a group of peers.

methodsThe study has a qualitative design with an inductive approach using focus group interviews (FGIs) for data collection. A total of 29 students were interviewed in five groups of five and one group of four participants.

resultsIn the analysis, we found four different discursive practices the students utilized for rationalizing their own smoking and coping with the moral dilemma of smoking in a context of health care where smoking is forbidden: (1) students normalized smoking with references to its prevalence within their social circles, (2) the students asserted that their smoking was under control, (3) students considered themselves responsible smokers, and (4) students identified smoking as a part of their identity.

conclusionTraining should support the growth of professional identity and address the smoker's identity right from the start of education. Smokers need special attention in the formulation of professional identity, however, without being stigmatized any further.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelNursing, PracticalSmokingAdolescentAdultFemaleFinlandFocus GroupsHumansQualitative ResearchStudents, NursingYoung AdultFocus group interviewNormalizationpractical nursesmoker identitysmokingviewsvocational school

Identifiers

PMID31107188
PMCPMC6534216

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.