↓ Skip to main content

How the perspectives of nursing assistants and frail elderly residents on their daily interaction in nursing homes affect their interaction: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How the perspectives of nursing assistants and frail elderly residents on their daily interaction in nursing homes affect their interaction: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12877-016-0186-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chi-chi Lung, Justina Yat Wa Liu

Abstract

Good support from and positive relations with institutional staff can enhance the psychosocial wellbeing of residents admitted to a nursing home. Nursing assistants (NAs) interact most frequently with residents and play an important role in developing good rapport with them. Most studies have described the daily interactions between NAs and residents as task oriented. Only few have attempted to explore the perspectives of NAs and residents on their daily interactions. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify the types of daily interactions perceived by NAs and residents. We also investigated those intentions / beliefs held by NAs and residents that might direct their interactive behaviors. A descriptive, exploratory, qualitative approach was used to explore the perspectives of 18 NAs (mean age: 51) and 15 residents (mean age: 84.4) on their daily interactions. Unstructured in-depth interviews were used to collect data. All of the interviews were conducted from July to December 2013. The collected data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by content analysis. Three types of interactions were found that described the NAs' and residents' perspectives on their daily interactions: (1) physiologically-oriented daily interactions; (2) cordial interactions intended to maintain a harmonious atmosphere; and (3) reciprocal social interactions intended to develop closer rapport. One or more themes reflecting the participants' intentions or beliefs were identified from each group to support each type of interaction. An over-emphasis on the formal caring relationship and over-concern about maintaining a harmonious atmosphere contributed to a superficial and distant relationship between the two parties. Building close rapport takes time and involves repeated reciprocal social interactions. The findings showed that with good intentions to establish closer rapport, both NAs and residents did favors for each other. All of those favors were easily integrated in the care provided to the residents without increasing the workload of the NAs. Modifying the training given to NAs and adjusting institutional policies are crucial to raising the competence of the NAs in building good relationships with residents. Positive interactions improve the psychosocial wellbeing of the residents and encourage them to cooperate during the delivery of care, thereby improving their overall health and contributing to the NAs' job satisfaction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 94 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 18%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Librarian 5 5%
Other 20 21%
Unknown 24 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 27 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 14%
Social Sciences 10 11%
Psychology 9 9%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 26 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 February 2016.
All research outputs
#13,759,606
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#2,054
of 3,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,655
of 395,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#46
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,189 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 395,720 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.