ArticleBMC nursing2019
'Thinking outside the box': advanced geriatric nursing in primary health care in Scandinavia.
Article in BMC nursing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Self-reported competence among advanced practice nursing students in Denmark, Finland and Norway: a cross-sectional multicentre study.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- Introducing a triage and Nurse on Call model in primary health care - a focus group study of health care staff's experiences.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of nurse's role in primary care settings: an integrative review.BMC nursing · 2021Article
- Bibliometric Analysis on Geriatric Nursing Research in Web of Science (1900-2020).BioMed research international · 2021Article
- Loneliness Among Older Home-Dwelling Persons: A Challenge for Home Care Nurses.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2021Article
- Complexity as a factor for task allocation among general practitioners and nurse practitioners: a narrative review.BMC family practice · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOlder people are frequent users of primary health care (PHC) services. PHC services have been critiqued, mainly regarding limited accessibility and continuity of care. In many countries, investment in nurse practitioners (NPs) has been one strategy to improve PHC services. In the North of Europe, the NP role is still in its infancy. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of introducing geriatric nurse practitioners (GNPs) in PHC in Scandinavia, from multiprofessional and older persons' perspectives.
methodsThe study had a qualitative design, including 25 semi-structured interviews with nurses, nurse leaders, physicians, politicians and older persons from several communities in Scandinavia. The material was analysed by means of qualitative content analysis.
resultsThe results highlight current challenges in health services for the older population, i.e. comorbid older patients with complex care needs aging in place, lack of competent staff, and organisational challenges. The results present an envisioned GNP scope of practice in health services for the older population, including bringing advanced competence closer to the patient, an autonomous role including task-shifting, and a linking role. The results also present factors influencing implementation of the GNP role, i.e. GNP competence level, unclear role and scope of practice, and openness to reorganisation.
conclusionsThe results indicate that it is feasible to implement the GNP role in primary health care in Scandinavia. Notwithstanding, there are factors influencing implementation of the GNP role that should be considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.