ArticleJournal of nursing management2026
A Theoretical Framework of Implicit Care Rationing in Australian Long-Term Aged Care Settings: A Straussian Grounded Theory Study.
Article in Journal of nursing management, 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.
- A Theoretical Framework of Implicit Care Rationing in Australian Long-Term Aged Care Settings: A Straussian Grounded Theory Study.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImplicit care rationing (ICR), where care delivery is strategically arranged by frontline healthcare professionals under resource constraints, is widely acknowledged across healthcare settings. However, its theoretical conceptualisation remains underdeveloped in the context of long-term aged care (LTAC) settings worldwide.
aimThis study aimed to develop a theoretical framework of ICR in Australian LTAC by exploring the actual care decision-making processes of hands-on healthcare staff through the lens of Donabedian's model.
methodsUsing a Straussian grounded theory approach, data were collected in two phases. Phase 1 involved developing a preliminary framework through in-depth interviews with 26 registered nurses, clinical managers and personal care workers. Phase 2 validated and refined the framework through focus group discussions with another 18 healthcare staff in the above roles. A combination of online and in-person strategies was used for participant recruitment and data collection. Constant comparative analysis was conducted concurrently with data collection and supported by an iterative review of relevant literature.
resultsThe developed theoretical framework of ICR unravels the relevant influencing factors, the cognitive pathway and the prompt care delivery outcomes that are evident in Australian LTAC. This framework conceptualises ICR as a dynamic, shift-level decision-making process concerned with the order and completeness of care delivery. This cognitive process is driven by the intuitive assessment of healthcare staff of both external and internal impact factors, guided by a risk-averse, consequence-focused mindset and trade-offs between person-centred and task-focused care approaches.
conclusionsThe developed theoretical framework enhances academic consistency and rigour through an evolutionary reconceptualisation of ICR grounded in strategic healthcare resource allocation. It clarifies the relationship between ICR and missed care, challenging their interchangeable use in previous research. This framework also offers practical insights to inform workforce strategies, measurement development and targeted interventions, ultimately contributing to improved care quality and safety in Australian LTAC.
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.