Loaded both ways: The impact of dialectical tensions on nurses’ manual handling practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Manual handling is an integral part of the work of nursing however high injury rates persist. A clarification of the clinical practice issues related to manual handling is the first step towards reducing manual handling injuries. As historical, cultural and socio-political factors combine to shape nurses’ manual handling practices, it is vital that the dominant paradigms guiding manual handling interventions are critically analysed. If the complexities of the clinical environment are not considered during the development of manual handling safety programs, then injuries and deviations from recommended practices may continue. Methods: This paper discusses the findings from a qualitative research study conducted in 2012 on the manual handling experiences of thirteen nurses from two Australian states. The study explored nurses’ perceptions and experiences relating to manual handling in the healthcare context and their participation in injury prevention programs. The research was framed in a critical emancipatory methodology incorporating an intent to provide opportunities for reflective practice, enhanced awareness and the potential for empowerment. The two methods used in this study were semi-structured interviews and researcher reflective journaling. Findings: Thematic analysis produced an overarching theme of 'power relations' that revealed a subcategory of ‘(mis)power’ and further subthemes of 'how to practice' and 'voicing practice issues'. Specifically this paper discusses a dataset on the first subtheme, 'how to practice’ and the dialectical tensions experienced by nurses when undertaking manual handling activities. The findings suggest that the socio-political context of healthcare impacts upon nurses’ professional lives and produces discordance between manual handling policy and practice. The authors argue that manual handling issues may not be resolved without due consideration of these contextual influences on practice. Conclusion: Critical reflection and recognition of nurses' manual handling concerns can validate nurses’ experiences and make explicit previously taken-for-granted assumptions about manual handling. A clear understanding of the conditions that constrain nursing practice is a prerequisite for manual handling improvements in healthcare. The inclusion of nurses’ perspectives and experiences enables the generation of new insights to aid the development of interventions that are more readily embraced by clinicians. Furthermore, the reconceptualisation and identification of ways to restructure manual handling can empower nurses to act on the basis of this knowledge. The paper concludes with a discussion on the overall significance of conducting this study in relation to the development of sustainable manual handling practice changes within the existing healthcare context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".