Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32727481›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2020

A concept analysis of dignity-protective continence care for care dependent older people in long-term care settings.

Joan Ostaszkiewicz, Virginia Dickson-Swift, Alison Hutchinson, Adrian Wagg

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Holistically sustainable continence care: A working definition, the case of single-used absorbent hygiene products (AHPs) and the need for ecosystems thinking.Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Joan OstaszkiewiczCentre for Quality and Patient Safety Research - Barwon Health Partnership, Institute for Healthcare Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia. j.ostaszkiewicz@nari.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-4159-4493
Virginia Dickson-SwiftCentre for Quality and Patient Safety Research - Barwon Health Partnership, Institute for Healthcare Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia.
Alison HutchinsonCentre for Quality and Patient Safety Research - Monash Health Partnership, Institute for Healthcare Transformation, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia.
Adrian WaggDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Barwon Health · AUDeakin University · AUUniversity of Alberta · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough codes of conduct, guidelines and standards call for healthcare practitioners to protect patients' dignity, there are widespread concerns about a lack of attention to the dignity of older people who need assistance with toileting, incontinence or bladder or bowel care in health or social care settings that provide long-term care. Incontinence and care dependence threatens patient dignity. The aim of this research was to explore, describe and explain the concept of dignity as it relates to continence care for older people requiring long-term care.

methodsThe first four steps of Rodgers evolutionary method of concept analysis were followed. First, a comprehensive and systematic search of databases and key guidelines about continence care was undertaken to identify empirical research about dignity and continence care in older people in facilities that provide permanent residential or inpatient care of older people for day-to-day living. Data were extracted on the authors, date, sample, country of origin, and key definitions, attributes, contexts and consequences from each included record. Findings were inductively analysed and grouped according to whether they were the key attributes and antecedents of dignity in relation to continence care or the consequences of undignified continence care.

resultsOf 625 articles identified, 18 were included in the final analysis. Fifty individual attributes were identified that were categorised in 6 domains (respect, empathy, trust, privacy, autonomy and communication). A further 15 were identified that related to the environment (6 physical and 9 social). Key consequences of undignified continence care were also identified and categorised into 3 levels of impact (resident/family member, staff or organisation).

conclusionsThis research resulted in a conceptual understanding of dignity that can be used as a value or guiding principle in an ethic of care for older people who need assistance with toileting, incontinence or bladder or bowel care in long-term care settings.

Indexed as

RespectUrinary IncontinenceAgedAged, 80 and overAttitude of Health PersonnelHumansLong-Term CareConcept analysisContinence careDignityDignity-protective continence careLong-term carePerson-centred care

Identifiers

PMID32727481
PMCPMC7392826
OpenAlexW3045946296

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.