Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32587719›Full record

ArticleNursing open2020

Balancing contradictory requirements in homecare nursing-A discourse analysis.

Ann-Kristin Fjørtoft, Trine Oksholm, Oddvar Førland, Charlotte Delmar, Herdis Alvsvåg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

5 authors.

Ann-Kristin FjørtoftCenter of Diaconia and Professional Practice VID Specialized University Oslo Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-9152-4314
Trine OksholmFaculty of Health Sciences VID Specialized University Bergen Norway.
Oddvar FørlandFaculty of Health Sciences VID Specialized University Bergen Norway.
Charlotte DelmarFaculty of Health Sciences VID Specialized University Bergen Norway.
Herdis AlvsvågFaculty of Health Sciences VID Specialized University Bergen Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: To explore prevailing discourses on nursing competence in homecare nursing to boost understanding of practice within this field. Design: A qualitative study with a social constructivist perspective. Methods: Six focus-group interviews with homecare nurses in six different municipalities in Norway. Adapting a critical discourse analysis, data were linguistically, thematically and contextually analysed in the light of theories on competence, institutional logic and discourses. Results: The analysis found homecare nursing to be a diverse and contradictory practice with ever-increasing work tasks. Presented as binary oppositions, we identified the following prevailing discourses: individualized care versus organizing work; everyday-life care versus medical follow-up; and following rules versus using professional discretion. The binary oppositions represent contradictory requirements that homecare nurses strive to balance. The findings indicate that medical follow-up and organizational work have become more dominant in homecare nursing, leaving less time and attention paid to relational and everyday-life care.

Indexed as

Home Care ServicesFocus GroupsHumansNorwayQualitative ResearchSalaries and Fringe Benefitscompetencecontradictionscritical discourse analysisfocus groupshome health carenursing

Identifiers

PMID32587719
PMCPMC7308681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.