Between principles and pragmatism – primary healthcare and social services professionals’ experiences and perceptions of self-care for older adults with home care: a qualitative study

Figures & data

Table 1. Informant characteristics.

	Primary care, rehabilitation (PT = 6, OT = 2)	Primary care, health care (GP = 1; RN = 3)	Social services officers	Home care service staff	Total
Women/men, n	7/1	4/0	4/1	6/0	21/2
Age, y	40 (28–59)	44 (35–48)	46 (43–61)	38 (34–47)	42 (28–61)
Time in practice, y	12 (2.5–27)	12 (5–15)	15.5 (3–25)	11.5 (7–20)	13 (2.5–27)
Time at current workplace, y	3 (1–8)	5.5 (2–7)	7 (3–22)	7.5 (3–12)	7 (1–22)
Issued^# CSS, n	2.5 (0–10)*	7.5 (1–10)	N/A	N/A	4 (0–10)
Processed^# CSS, n	N/A	N/A	5 (1–15)	N/A	5 (1–15)

Data are presented as numbers or median (range); n = numbers, y = years.

GP: general practitioner; OT: occupational therapist; PT: physiotherapist; RN: registered nurse; CSS: Certificate for self-care with support.

^#Licensed healthcare professionals can issue a CSS if support to perform a self-care intervention is needed, and social services officers decide if additional home care will be approved, i.e. processing the CSS.

*One informant had not issued a CSS but had experience of supporting colleagues in the CSS process.

Table 2. Description of the analysis based on the six-phase analytical process outlined by Braun and Clarke [11,12].

Phase	Description
1. Familiarization with data	Transcripts were read and re-read by the first and second author. The audio recordings were listened to simultaneously to gain a further contextual understanding of the data. Reflexive notes were made during the reading, listening, and coding.
2. Generating codes	The coding process was conducted by the first and second author. In the process the authors worked systematically through the entire dataset, and all items that could be useful in addressing the research question were coded. Both semantic and latent codes were used, and relevant items could be double-coded. The first and second author had continuous discussions through the coding process to create insight and increase understanding of data.
3. Developing themes	The codes were reviewed and discussed by the first and second authors. Discussion continued concerning the relationship between codes and initial meaning-based themes were generated. In this phase, codes were sorted into topic areas or clusters of meaning.
4. Reviewing themes	The team of co-authors repeatedly discussed findings, initial themes, and interpretations to confirm that the analysis remained true to the research question.
5. Defining and naming themes	The first and second authors revised the themes to create the most meaningful interpretation of the data. The writing of the manuscript began. The interviews were listened to once more by the first and second authors to try to ensure the relevance of the themes. Relevant names to describe the core of the themes were applied.
6. Writing the manuscript	Discussion continued between the co-authors about the themes and how to describe them. The writing of the manuscript was finalized.

Samverkan när enskilda/patienter behöver praktisk hjälp med egenvård - Storsthlm. Collaboration when individuals/patients need practical assistance with self-care – Greater Stockholm 2015; 2015. https://vardgivarguiden.se/avtal/samverkansomraden/samverkan/

 Google Scholar

Ahrén S, Högstedt K, Jakobsson E, et al. Användning av egenvårdsintyg inom primärvård och äldreomsorg i Stockholms län – en kartläggning. [Use of certificate for self-care with support in primary care and elderly care in Stockholm County – a survey]. 2023 ÄiC VS. (In press).

 Google Scholar