ArticleBMC nursing2026
"Nursing home staff's reasoning about providing palliative care following an educational intervention - a qualitative interview study".
Article in BMC nursing, 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
backgroundPalliative care (PC) is increasingly recognised as an essential component of healthcare, yet access remains unequal, particularly for older people. Nursing homes accommodate older people with complex needs and account for a large proportion of deaths, making PC a central component of care in these settings and underscoring the importance of integrating a PC approach into everyday care. However, staff often lack sufficient training and may perceive PC as limited to end-of-life care rather than as an ongoing approach. Education has been proposed to strengthen PC competence, but little is known about how staff reason about PC following such initiatives. This study aimed to explore nursing home staff's reasoning about providing PC after participating in an interprofessional educational intervention (IPEI).
methodsA descriptive qualitative design was used. Eighteen staff members from five nursing homes in Sweden, including registered nurses, assistant nurses, a physician, first-line managers, and PC champions, participated. Data were collected through semi-structured individual interviews conducted between March and April 2024 and analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis.
resultsThree main categories were identified: (1) managing one's own emotions, thoughts, and attitudes; (2) the significance of relationships, communication, and interactions in care; and (3) navigating norms, assumptions, and organisational structures in everyday PC. These categories reflect how staff reasoned about providing PC at individual, relational, and organisational dimensions.
conclusionsThe findings suggest that staff perceived the IPEI as providing opportunities for personal and professional development. Staff's reasoning further suggested that alignment across individual, relational, and organisational dimensions is important in supporting the provision of PC. Providing PC was not solely a matter of enhancing staff knowledge; rather, staff's reasoning suggested that knowledge and conditions for care are shaped through the interplay between staff attitudes, their reasoning about care, relational dynamics, and organisational conditions. When these dimensions align and mutually reinforce one another, favourable conditions for providing PC may be supported. Such conditions may also be supported through interprofessional educational initiatives that combine theoretical knowledge with opportunities for reflection and practical application. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.