ArticleFrontiers in health services2026
A process evaluation of everyday life rehabilitation: a critical discourse analysis of housing staff perspectives.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Residents in supported accommodation often lead lonely and sedentary lives, with limited influence on everyday decisions. In addition, long-term outreach-based rehabilitative efforts and integrated care remain uncommon in this setting. The intervention, Everyday Life Rehabilitation (ELR), was developed specifically for this setting and has demonstrated robust effectiveness in an experimental trial. Yet implementation of similar interventions often meets resistance. This study examines how organisational discourse and contextual determinants shape the implementation of recovery-oriented interventions in supported accommodation. Method: This is an embedded process evaluation following a randomised controlled trial of ELR in Sweden. Focus group interviews were conducted with housing staff ( Findings: Our interpretation is that the core discourses among housing staff revealed how they diminished the intervention's perceived novelty and legitimised existing practices to cope with change. The discourses often constrained resident's potential to maintain control over collective resources in accordance with organisational norms. Across the corpus, staff discourses protected the boundary between insiders and outsiders, potentially generating tensions regarding collaboration, ownership, and power. Finally, vague leadership often blurred the lines of accountability, requiring staff and occupational therapists to negotiate responsibilities within organisational constraints. Conclusion: Discourse analysis can be a valuable methodology for understanding how implementation barriers emerge and are sustained in supported accommodation. We argue that the identified barriers did not reflect staff resistance to the intervention but rather how the implementation process was framed within the organisation. Our interpretation is that structural limitations, including vague leadership and unclear accountability for implementation, constrained staff agency and contributed to discursive strategies that legitimised resistance and gatekeeping.
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.