ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2022
Perceived quality of collaboration in dehydration care among Dutch nursing home professionals: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Utilization patterns of hypodermoclysis and association with staffing levels in long-term care: a cross-sectional multicenter study in France.European geriatric medicine · 2026Article
- Dietary behavioural support in Dutch nursing homes: a cross-sectional study.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Perceived quality of collaboration in dehydration care among Dutch nursing home professionals: A cross-sectional study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo explore the perceived quality of collaboration in dehydration care among nursing and medical staff in Dutch nursing homes.
designA cross-sectional study.
methodsAn online questionnaire was administered to nursing and medical staff in February 2020 to assess the quality of collaboration in dehydration care and its influencing factors. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests and multinomial logistic regression analysis were used to describe the results and examine differences between groups.
resultsIn total, 695 questionnaires were completed by multiple levels of (specialized) nursing staff and nursing home physicians. The quality of collaboration was assessed as good (23.2%), sufficient (59.4%) and insufficient (17.4%). Predicting factors related to perceiving the quality of collaboration as good were working experience, dehydration training during education and the presence of a dehydration protocol/guideline in the nursing home. Enabling factors related to collaboration in dehydration care were 'availability of sufficient aids to detect dehydration', 'continuity in the care relationship' and 'sufficient background data of the resident in the care record'. Factors that hinder collaboration were 'insufficient knowledge about dehydration among nursing and medical staff', 'the absence of a team meeting in which the topic dehydration is discussed' and 'insufficient staffing level among nursing and medical staff'.
conclusionCollaboration in dehydration care was generally assessed as sufficient. Participants with >10 years of working experience, who received dehydration training during their education and had a dehydration protocol/guideline available in the nursing home, perceived the quality of collaboration more often as good. Experienced barriers and enablers for collaboration in dehydration care varied between professional groups. Therefore, it is important to gain more insight into (informal) caregivers' perceptions on what is expected from each other about dehydration care. IMPACT: Care professionals experience several limiting factors in collaborating in dehydration care. Addressing these factors could optimize dehydration care in Dutch nursing homes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.