ArticleThe Gerontologist2026
Routinized violence: examining long-term residential care workers' perspectives on involuntary treatment.
Article in The Gerontologist, 2026. 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.
- Safe Enough to Thrive: A Dignity of Risk Framework for Older Adult Mental Health Care.Sage open agingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesIn long-term residential care (LTRC), sometimes workers provide treatment that residents refuse or resist, which can cause harm to both workers and residents. In this analysis, we explored how and when workers provide involuntary treatment, when they accept or see this practice as necessary and when they reject this practice. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsFollowing a qualitative research design, data were collected through interviews with nurses, health care aides, recreation, and housekeeping staff in two Canadian provinces and observations in two LTRC facilities in the province of Manitoba. Using an interpretive coding approach and guided by Foucauldian concepts of power and structural violence, we examined descriptions of violent situations and everyday interactions with a particular focus on involuntary treatment.
resultsBeliefs about the potential for physical harm toward workers influenced the perceived acceptability, or rejection, of involuntary treatment. However, workers often expressed ambivalence about the acceptability of certain practices (e.g., using multiple workers to hold down a resident to provide personal care). The potential for worker injury and risk of being reprimanded were frequently identified by workers as shaping their decisions about whether to proceed with treatment to which the resident had not consented. At times, workers also expressed obligation to provide involuntary treatment for biomedical reasons, or because there seemed to be no good alternative. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Workers' narratives about involuntary treatment reflect a lack of interpersonal and organizational safety that undermines the autonomy and dignity of those for whom they provide 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.