ArticleHealth (London, England : 1997)2024
The day program multiple: Noncoherence and ontological politics.
Article in Health (London, England : 1997), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Globally, day programs are increasingly proposed in policy as one way to address the support needs of people living at home with dementia and their families. Day programs represent a kind of space that can meet multiple interests and ideologies concerned with sustaining care at home for people living with dementia. In this paper, we draw on findings from an ethnographic study of how day programs work as care in the community for people living with dementia to argue that day programs' ontological status in research as a "simple location" of care contributes to the ambiguous outcomes and limited evidence available for improving their design and delivery. Using one program as an illustrative case, we demonstrate the multiplicity of a day program and the ontological politics through which the potentialities for care emerge. Robert Cooper's proximal analysis of organizing's and Annemarie Mol's work on ontological politics inform this analysis. Of note in this analysis are the different enactments of a day program and their modes of coordination. We show when these enactments hang together well and when they do not and consider the effects of these politics for care. Of particular concern is how some versions of a day program are easily displaced by the interests of administrative versions and managerial logics. We argue for approaches to research and planning that acknowledge the "day program multiple" and precarious nature of care.
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.