ArticleNursing ethics2026
Medication refusal in residential aged care homes: A qualitative exploratory study.
Article in Nursing ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundIn Residential Aged Care Homes (RACHs), medication administration is typically carried out by aged care workers, rather than being under the control of older adults. Very little empirical qualitative evidence exists around situations where medication is refused by older adults.Research aimTo explore aged care workers', older adults', and family members' perspectives and experiences of medication refusal in RACHs.Research designA qualitative exploratory study design. Participants and research contextBetween November 2024 and May 2025, participants were purposively recruited from two RACHs, and through a peak consumer group for people living with dementia and their families. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with aged care workers (n = 10), older adults living in aged care (n = 9), and family members of older adults (n = 7). Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis.Ethical considerationsInterview participation was voluntary, with either written or verbal consent obtained, depending on participants' preferences. Identities were replaced with participant type and a numerical code. This study was approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (MUHREC) (ID 41475). FindingsThree themes and four subthemes were developed regarding medication refusal in RACHs. These themes encompassed: (1) 'Voices from different corners: medication refusals as more than just saying "no"'; (2) 'the tightrope of role obligations - doing good, respecting choice, and avoiding harm'; and (3) 'Competent to say yes, but not to say no: the erosion of the right to refuse'.ConclusionsMedication refusals in RACHs are clinically and ethically challenging for aged care workers, who use a variety of well-intentioned strategies to respond to these events. Given the complex nature of medication refusals, it is important that aged care workers take older adults' decisional competence into consideration, balancing respect for autonomy with beneficence and best interests decision-making.
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.