ArticleNursing ethics2022
Older patients' perspectives on illness and healthcare during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Nursing ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 'A Story of Being Invisible': A Single Case Study on the Significance of Being Recognised When Needing Acute Healthcare in the Early COVID-19 Pandemic.Qualitative health research · 2023Article
- "Three Sides to Every Story": Living the Patient, Carer and Staff Experience of COVID.Global qualitative nursing researchArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEqual access to healthcare is a core principle in Norway's public healthcare system. The COVID-19 pandemic challenged healthcare systems in the early phase - in particular, related to testing and hospital capacity. There is little knowledge on how older people experienced being infected with an unfamiliar and severe disease, and how they experienced the need for healthcare early in the pandemic.
aimTo explore the experiences of older people infected by COVID-19 and their need for testing and hospitalisation. RESEARCH
designAn explorative and descriptive approach, with qualitative interviews conducted in October 2020. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: Seventeen participants above 60 years of age hospitalised due to COVID-19 during spring 2020 were recruited 6 months after discharge. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Ethical approval was granted by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics in South-Eastern Norway (155425).
findingsThe main finding was that the informants experienced vulnerability and arbitrariness. This finding was supported by three sub-themes: experiences with a severe and unfamiliar disease, the strict criteria and the importance of someone advocating needs. DISCUSSION: Participants described varying access to healthcare. Those who did not meet the national criteria to be tested or hospitalised struggled against the system. Findings reveal arbitrary access to healthcare, in contrast to Norway's ethical principle of fair and just access to health services. Moreover, to access and receive necessary healthcare, informants were dependent on their next-of-kin's advocacy.
conclusionEven when dealing with an unfamiliar disease, health professionals' assessments of symptoms must be performed with an ethical obligation to applicate competent appraisal and the exercise of discernment; this is in line with care ethics and ethical standards for nurses. These perspectives are a significant part of caring and the intension of doing good.
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.