Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34841007›Full record

ArticleGlobal qualitative nursing research

Older Adults Living in Sheltered Housing's Experiences of Involvement in Pro Re Nata Decisions. A Narrative Positioning Analysis.

Marianne Kollerøs Nilsen, Bodil H Blix, Hege Sletvold, Rose Mari Olsen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global qualitative nursing research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marianne Kollerøs NilsenFaculty of Nursing and Health Sciences, Nord University, Namsos, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6824-8550
Bodil H BlixDepartment of Health and Care Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1049-4636
Hege SletvoldFaculty of Nursing and Health Sciences, Nord University, Namsos, Norway.
Rose Mari OlsenFaculty of Nursing and Health Sciences, Nord University, Namsos, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7009-8803
Nord University · NOUiT The Arctic University of Norway · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decisions regarding pro re nata medications might be challenging due to the complex nature of the practice. The aim of this study was to expand our understanding of the experiences of older people living in sheltered housings with regard to shared decision-making concerning pro re nata medications. In this study, we conducted in-depth interviews with residents living in Norwegian sheltered housings. The analysis was inductive, based on a narrative positioning analysis. Twelve residents were interviewed, and three narratives representing participants' variation are presented. People take different positions in shared decision-making of pro re nata medication, and they position themselves variously at different levels and situations. Prevailing master narratives affect the residents' positions in shared decision-making. Contrasts in older adults' experiences indicate that shared decision-making is not straightforward and is highly reliant on the context. Seemingly, they wish to be involved and not involved at the same time, a contradiction that healthcare providers need to consider.

Indexed as

aged caredecision-makingnarrative analysisNorwayPRN medicationresidential care

Identifiers

PMID34841007
PMCPMC8611287
OpenAlexW3217178089

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.