‘We just do the dirty work’: dealing with incontinence, courtesy stigma and the low occupational status of carework in long‐term aged care facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To systematically examine, describe and explain how continence care was determined, delivered and communicated in Australian long aged care facilities. BACKGROUND: Incontinence is a highly stigmatising condition that affects a disproportionally large number of people living in long-term aged care facilities. Its day-to-day management is mainly undertaken by careworkers. We conducted a Grounded theory study to explore how continence care was determined, delivered and communicated in long-term aged care facilities. This paper presents one finding, i.e. how careworkers in long-term aged care facilities deal with the stigma, devaluation and the aesthetically unpleasant aspects of their work. DESIGN: Grounded theory. METHODS: Eighty-eight hours of field observations in two long-term aged care facilities in Australia. In addition, in-depth interviews with 18 nurses and careworkers who had experience of providing, supervising or assessment of continence care in any long-term aged care facility in Australia. RESULTS: Occupational exposure to incontinence contributes to the low occupational status of carework in long-term aged care facilities, and continence care is a symbolic marker for inequalities within the facility, the nursing profession and society at large. Careworkers' affective and behavioural responses are characterised by: (1) accommodating the context; (2) dissociating oneself; (3) distancing oneself and (4) attempting to elevate one's role status. CONCLUSION: The theory extends current understandings about the links between incontinence, continence care, courtesy stigma, emotional labour and the low occupational status of carework in long-term aged care facilities. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study provides insights into the ways in which tacit beliefs and values about incontinence, cleanliness and contamination may affect the social organisation and delivery of care in long-term aged care facilities. Nurse leaders should challenge the stigma and devaluation of carework and careworkers, and reframe carework as 'dignity work'.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".