Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40577045›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being2025

Critical evaluation of methodology in "Experiences of insomnia among older people living in nursing homes a qualitative study".

Milad Kazemi Najm, Nasrin Imanifar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being, 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.

Milad Kazemi NajmStudent Research Committee, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-8159-2049
Nasrin ImanifarInstructor and Faculty Member of the Department of Nursing, Khor.C. Islamic Azad University, Khorramabad, Iran.ORCID 0000-0001-7176-0849

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis letter critically evaluates the methodology of Eva Hjort Telhede's qualitative study exploring insomnia experiences among nursing homes. While the study contributes valuable insights into subjective sleep challenges, its methodological rigour warrants scrutiny to inform future research.

methodsThe study employed a qualitative descriptive design with semi-structured interviews (

resultsKey methodological strengths included purposive sampling, data saturation, and reflexive practices. Limitations identified were single-researcher bias, lack of intercoder reliability checks, gender imbalance (4 men, 15 women), and exclusion of variables such as cognitive diagnoses and medication use. Environmental factors (e.g. noise and lighting) were self-reported without objective validation, and contextual transferability was constrained by limited demographic diversity. DISCUSSION: The reliance on a single coder and absence of triangulation may compromise the depth of thematic analysis. Recommendations include: (1) multi-researcher collaboration to enhance credibility; (2) inclusive sampling of residents with dementia; (3) mixed-methods designs integrating objective sleep measures; and (4) staff training in sleep hygiene to address institutional barriers. Strengthening methodological transparency and addressing contextual factors could improve future interventions for insomnia in nursing homes.

Indexed as

Nursing HomesResearch DesignSleep Initiation and Maintenance DisordersAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleQualitative ResearchReproducibility of ResultsSwedencontent analyzesinsomniamethodology critiquenursing homesolder peopleQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID40577045
PMCPMC12207777

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.