Client–nurse relationships in home‐based palliative care: a critical analysis of power relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To elicit an in-depth understanding of the sources of power and how power is exercised within client-nurse relationships in home-based palliative care. BACKGROUND: As in all social relations, power is present within client-nurse relationships. Although much research has focused on interpersonal relationships in nursing, the concept of power within the client-nurse relationship in palliative care settings has not been extensively investigated. METHODS: Applying a critical lens, secondary qualitative data analysis was conducted. Seventeen nurse and 16 client transcripts from a primary study were selected for secondary data analysis. These 33 transcripts afforded theme saturation, which allowed for both commonalities and differences to be identified. Data analysis involved analytic coding. RESULTS: Study findings help make explicit the underlying power present in the context of home-based palliative care and how this power is used and potentially abused. In analysing the sources and exercise of power, the linkage between macro and micro levels of power is made explicit, as nurses functioned within a hierarchy of power. The findings suggest that educational/occupational status continues to be a source of power for nurses within the relationship. However, nurses also experience powerlessness within the home care context. For clients, being able to control one's own life is a source of power, but this power is over-shadowed by the powerlessness experienced in relationships with nurses. The exercise of power by clients and nurses creates experiences of both liberation and domination. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses who are willing to reflect on and change those disempowering aspects of the client-nurse relationship, including a harmful hierarchy, will ultimately be successful in the health promotion of clients in home-based palliative care. Additionally, it should be recognized that nurses work within a specific health system context and, therefore, their practice is influenced by policies and funding models implemented at various levels of the health care system. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The insights gained through this investigation may assist nurses and other health professionals in reflecting on and improving practices and policies within home-based palliative care and within home care in general.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".