Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32547050›Full record

ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2020

Community Health Care Workers' Experiences on Enacting Policy on Technology with Citizens with Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia.

Torhild Holthe, Liv Halvorsrud, Erik Thorstensen, Dag Karterud, Debbie Laliberte Rudman, Anne Lund

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Torhild HoltheOslo Metropolitan University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Occupational Therapy, Prosthetics and Orthotics, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-7660-3658
Liv HalvorsrudOslo Metropolitan University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing and Health Promotion, Oslo, Norway.
Erik ThorstensenOslo Metropolitan University, Work Research Institute, Centre for Welfare and Labour Research, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-4497-6577
Dag KarterudOslo Metropolitan University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing and Health Promotion, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-0426-7637
Debbie Laliberte RudmanUniversity of Western Ontario, School of Occupational Therapy & Graduate Program in Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, London, Canada.
Anne LundOslo Metropolitan University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Occupational Therapy, Prosthetics and Orthotics, Oslo, Norway.
OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University · NONorwegian Labour and Welfare Administration · NOWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAssistive technologies and digitalization of services are promoted through health policy as key means to manage community care obligations efficiently, and to enable older community care recipients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia (D) to remain at home for longer. The overall aim of this paper is to explore how community health care workers enacted current policy on technology with home-dwelling citizens with MCI/D. PARTICIPANTS AND

methodsTwenty-four community health care workers participated in one of five focus group discussions that explored their experiences and current practices with technologies for citizens with MCI/D. Five researchers took part in the focus groups, while six researchers collaboratively conducted an inductive, thematic analysis according to Braun & Clarke.

resultsTwo main themes with sub-themes were identified: 1) Current and future potentials of technology; i) frequently used technology, ii) cost-effectiveness and iii) "be there" for social contact and 2) Barriers to implement technologies; i) unsystematic approaches and contested responsibility, ii) knowledge and training and iii) technology in relation to user-friendliness and citizen capacities.

conclusionThis study revealed the complexity of implementing policy aims regarding technology provision for citizens with MCI/D. By use of Lipsky's theory on street-level bureaucracy, we shed light on how community health care workers were situated between policies and the everyday lives of citizens with MCI/D, and how their perceived lack of knowledge and practical experiences influenced their exercise of professional discretion in enacting policy on technology in community health care services. Overall, addressing systematic technology approaches was not part of routine care, which may contribute to inequities in provision of technologies to enhance occupational possibilities and meaningful activities in everyday lives of citizens with MCI/D.

trial registrationNSD project number 47996.

Indexed as

community health care servicesdiscretionolder adultsstreet-level bureaucracy

Identifiers

PMID32547050
PMCPMC7245453
OpenAlexW3024884275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.