Policy Frameworks for Nursing Practice in Community-Based Palliative Care: A Four-Country Comparative Documentary Analysis.

IF 3 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Ana Gonçalves, Barbara Gomes, Sara Pinto
{"title":"Policy Frameworks for Nursing Practice in Community-Based Palliative Care: A Four-Country Comparative Documentary Analysis.","authors":"Ana Gonçalves, Barbara Gomes, Sara Pinto","doi":"10.1177/15271544261463201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Nurses are central to palliative care, yet their community contributions remain undervalued. This study aimed to clarify how political and professional documents conceptualize nursing autonomy in community palliative care. Using the READ (Reading materials, Extracting data, Analyzing data, Distilling findings) methodology, a comparative documentary analysis was conducted in the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Sixty-eight strategic documents, identified through systematic searches and expert consultation, underwent targeted qualitative content analysis, combining deductive coding with inductive theme generation. Results reveal a multilevel framework of professional representation: (1) micro-level interventions; (2) meso-level contextual determinants; and (3) macro-level systemic dimensions. A critical tension exists between technical visibility and formal authority. In Portugal and Spain, robust taxonomic infrastructures provide high clinical visibility, yet legal frameworks prioritize \"system breadth\" over specialized nursing roles. The UK and the Netherlands emphasize \"vertical career trajectories,\" where specialty recognition and advanced education act as levers for clinical agency and nurse-led care. While all country policies prioritize home-based care, differences in how they improve autonomy may influence workforce sustainability and professional migration. These findings suggest that failing to formalize-specialized roles creates \"gray zones\" of responsibility. Strengthening the structural conditions that support nursing autonomy, including clear role recognition and aligned policy mechanisms, is essential for ensuring timely access to care and the long-term viability of community-based models. This study provides a roadmap for policymakers to reconcile professional agency with the universal right to high-quality care at the end-of-life.</p>","PeriodicalId":53177,"journal":{"name":"Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice","volume":" ","pages":"15271544261463201"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15271544261463201","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Nurses are central to palliative care, yet their community contributions remain undervalued. This study aimed to clarify how political and professional documents conceptualize nursing autonomy in community palliative care. Using the READ (Reading materials, Extracting data, Analyzing data, Distilling findings) methodology, a comparative documentary analysis was conducted in the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Sixty-eight strategic documents, identified through systematic searches and expert consultation, underwent targeted qualitative content analysis, combining deductive coding with inductive theme generation. Results reveal a multilevel framework of professional representation: (1) micro-level interventions; (2) meso-level contextual determinants; and (3) macro-level systemic dimensions. A critical tension exists between technical visibility and formal authority. In Portugal and Spain, robust taxonomic infrastructures provide high clinical visibility, yet legal frameworks prioritize "system breadth" over specialized nursing roles. The UK and the Netherlands emphasize "vertical career trajectories," where specialty recognition and advanced education act as levers for clinical agency and nurse-led care. While all country policies prioritize home-based care, differences in how they improve autonomy may influence workforce sustainability and professional migration. These findings suggest that failing to formalize-specialized roles creates "gray zones" of responsibility. Strengthening the structural conditions that support nursing autonomy, including clear role recognition and aligned policy mechanisms, is essential for ensuring timely access to care and the long-term viability of community-based models. This study provides a roadmap for policymakers to reconcile professional agency with the universal right to high-quality care at the end-of-life.

以社区为基础的姑息治疗护理实践的政策框架:一个四个国家的比较文献分析。
护士是姑息治疗的核心,但她们对社区的贡献仍然被低估。本研究旨在厘清政治和专业文件如何概念化社区姑息治疗中的护理自主权。使用READ(阅读材料、提取数据、分析数据、提炼发现)方法,在荷兰、葡萄牙、西班牙和英国进行了比较文献分析。通过系统检索和专家咨询,确定了68份战略文件,并进行了有针对性的定性内容分析,将演绎编码与归纳主题生成相结合。研究结果揭示了一个多层次的专业表征框架:(1)微观层面的干预;(2)中观层面的语境决定因素;(3)宏观层面的系统维度。在技术可见性和正式权威之间存在着一种关键的紧张关系。在葡萄牙和西班牙,强大的分类学基础设施提供了很高的临床可见性,但法律框架优先考虑“系统广度”而不是专业护理角色。英国和荷兰强调“垂直职业轨迹”,专业认可和高等教育作为临床代理和护士主导护理的杠杆。虽然所有国家的政策都优先考虑家庭护理,但这些政策在提高自主性方面的差异可能会影响劳动力的可持续性和专业移徙。这些发现表明,未能将专业角色正规化会造成责任的“灰色地带”。加强支持护理自主的结构条件,包括明确的角色认识和协调一致的政策机制,对于确保及时获得护理和社区模式的长期可行性至关重要。这项研究为政策制定者提供了一个路线图,以协调专业机构与普遍享有高质量临终关怀的权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice
Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.60%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Policy, Politics & Nursing Practice is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal that explores the multiple relationships between nursing and health policy. It serves as a major source of data-based study, policy analysis and discussion on timely, relevant policy issues for nurses in a broad variety of roles and settings, and for others outside of nursing who are interested in nursing-related policy issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书