Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40304762›Full record

ArticleZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2025

Self-positioning in the context of double duty caregiving-Secondary analysis of a scoping review.

Nicole Ruppert, Martina Roes

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Nicole RuppertFakultät für Gesundheit, Department für Pflegewissenschaft, Universität Witten-Herdecke, Alfred-Herrhausen-Straße 50, 58455, Witten, Germany. nicole.ruppert@uni-wh.de.
Martina RoesFakultät für Gesundheit, Department für Pflegewissenschaft, Universität Witten-Herdecke, Alfred-Herrhausen-Straße 50, 58455, Witten, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe needs and support requirements of double duty caregivers (DDC) by healthcare professionals differ depending on whether they identify themselves as a professional nurse or family caregiver in private care arrangements. Questions of identity are usually not addressed by the DDCs. Resulting misunderstandings have the potential for conflict, which places additional strain on DDCs.

aimThe aim of this article is to present the essential characteristics of DDCs based on a model corresponding to their identity either as a professional nurse or family caregiver in a private care arrangement.

methodsA secondary analysis of 32 articles identified after a systematic literature search for a scoping review on the topic was carried out. A total of 18 articles were included in the qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz and Rädiker.

resultsA model of Continuum of Self-Positioning of Double Duty Caregivers was developed. It describes the characteristics DDCs show in four contexts: caregiving context, family context, healthcare system context, own workplace. Depending on the understanding of their own role in the different care settings, they are able to develop a better understanding of their identity either as a professional nurse or family caregiver, whereby the transitions are fluid.

conclusionThere are characteristics that can be assigned to the respective presumed identity of the DDCs. Knowing this enables healthcare professionals and family members to interact appropriately with DDCs and thus minimize the potential for conflict.

Indexed as

CaregiversAgedHumansMaleCharacteristicsDual roleFamily caregiverIdentityProfessional nurse

Identifiers

PMID40304762
PMCPMC12644130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.