Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33815627›Full record

ArticleSexuality research & social policy : journal of NSRC : SR & SP2022

Not in the Brochure:

Mark Henrickson, Catherine M Cook, Sandra MacDonald, Narges Atefi, Vanessa Schouten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sexuality research & social policy : journal of NSRC : SR & SP, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Mark HenricksonSchool of Social Work, Massey University, Private Bag 102904, North Shore MSC, Auckland, 0745 New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-2769-5132
Catherine M CookSchool of Clinical Sciences, Nursing Department, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-3976-6858
Sandra MacDonaldSchool of Nursing, Manukau Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-8710-0108
Narges AtefiSchool of Social Work, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-4935-737X
Vanessa SchoutenSchool of Humanities, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-6188-5004

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Sexuality and intimacy in residential aged care (RAC) are receiving increased research attention. In this article, Methods: The present study was a two-arm mixed-method cross-sectional study using a concurrent triangulation design. A validated survey tool was developed. Data were collected in 2018-2019: 433 staff surveys were collected from 35 RAC across the country; 61 interviews were carried out with 77 staff, residents, and family members. Results: Staff opinions about sex work and pornography were inconclusive. Nevertheless, access to sex workers occurs in many RAC facilities across the country. Interviews demonstrated a diversity of responses among the three groups; staff attitudes are paramount. Conclusions: Some staff are prepared for resident requests for sex workers; others continue to look to policies and management for guidance, but such policies are often lacking. Most staff have adopted the language of needs vs. rights which dominates the literature. Policy Implications: Staff education on sexuality and facility policy is essential; education for residents and their families is also desirable. Facilities often over-notify third parties. Discourse about sexuality needs to move towards a person-centred, salutogenic approach.

Indexed as

AgeingPornographyProstitutionResidential aged careSexualitySex work

Identifiers

PMID33815627
PMCPMC8010488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.