Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42458408›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2026

When standards fall short: The use of discretion and just allocation of long-term care services in Norway.

Laila Tingvold, Ragnhild Hellesø, Aud Uhlen Obstfelder, Randi Stokke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2026. 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

4 authors.

Laila TingvoldCentre for Care Research East, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Teknologiveien 22, Gjøvik, 2815, Norway. laila.tingvold@ntnu.no.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0908-1743
Ragnhild HellesøCentre for Care Research East, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Teknologiveien 22, Gjøvik, 2815, Norway.
Aud Uhlen ObstfelderCentre for Care Research East, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Teknologiveien 22, Gjøvik, 2815, Norway.
Randi StokkeCentre for Care Research East, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Teknologiveien 22, Gjøvik, 2815, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCare administrators in long-term care (LTC) are 'gatekeepers' to the services and handle applications, investigate care needs, and decide if, what and how much services applicants are entitled to receive. Various models of service allocation have been in operation in the Nordic countries since the inception of LTC services in the 1970s. The main drivers of the development of allocation models have been concerns about service inequality among users, quality of care, patient safety, and the overall efficiency within healthcare settings. While care administrators have several laws and guidelines to aid their decision-making, the use of professional discretion is known to be widespread but less investigated. In the context of Norway, this article seeks to explore: What guides care administrators in reaching decisions? How and in which circumstances is the use of discretion needed in making decisions?

methodQualitative in-depth interviews with 5 managers in care administration and 13 care administrators in 5 Norwegian municipalities. The material was analysed using thematic analysis.

resultsTwo main themes were identified. These are Negotiating standards with discretion and collegial discussion, and Complexities in deciding needs and services.

conclusionCare administrators hold significant responsibility in ensuring fair service allocation. Discretion is a necessary and valuable tool that can strengthen the integrity and trustworthiness of care services. However, increased reforms and standardisation place heavy pressure on administrators, limiting their discretion through stricter allocation criteria. This may reduce their ability to act in the best interests of service applicants in line with the fiduciary principle.

Indexed as

Health Care RationingLong-Term CareHumansInterviews as TopicNorwayQualitative ResearchCare administratorsDiscretionLong-term care‘Principle of fiduciary’Service allocationWelfare state

Identifiers

PMID42458408
PMCPMC13660045

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.