IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v28y2019i1-2p289-299.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relatives’ strategies in subacute brain injury rehabilitation: The warrior, the observer and the hesitant

Author

Listed:
  • Rikke Guldager
  • Karen Willis
  • Kristian Larsen
  • Ingrid Poulsen

Abstract

Background Relative involvement is crucial in rehabilitation when patients are incapable of being involved due to cognitive and functional dysfunction. However, studies have shown that this is complex because of differing understandings of the meaning of involvement as well as diverse needs to be involved. Aims and objectives To explore the experience of the rehabilitation process from the perspectives of relatives of patients with a traumatic brain injury. The aim of the study was, through a theoretical‐empirical analysis, to identify relatives’ strategies and practices in the rehabilitation process as evidenced in meetings with providers. Design A longitudinal study with a qualitative approach, drawing on the theory of Pierre Bourdieu. Methods Data were generated using participant observation and semi‐structured interviews. Participants were eleven relatives of patients with a severe traumatic brain injury, followed through in‐patient rehabilitation varying from 9–12 weeks. Analysis was undertaken using both an inductive and deductive approach. Findings Drawing on Bourdieu's concept of strategy, three relative positions were identified, the warrior, the observer and the hesitant. These positions illustrate how different relative positions and their related dispositions influence the strategies used by relatives of patients with a severe traumatic brain injury evidenced in how they act, participate and relate to both the patient and the providers during the course of rehabilitation. Conclusions Acknowledging the relatives’ positions during the rehabilitation process enables better understanding and support of the relatives in the rehabilitation process to meet their (and thus the patients’) diverse needs. Relevance to clinical practice The findings have practical implications in informing how clinicians meet, interact, communicate and involve relatives of adult patients’ with traumatic brain injury in decision‐making during rehabilitation.

Suggested Citation

  • Rikke Guldager & Karen Willis & Kristian Larsen & Ingrid Poulsen, 2019. "Relatives’ strategies in subacute brain injury rehabilitation: The warrior, the observer and the hesitant," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1-2), pages 289-299, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:28:y:2019:i:1-2:p:289-299
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14598
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14598
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14598?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ragnhild JT Sekse & Målfrid Råheim & Gunnhild Blåka & Eva Gjengedal, 2012. "Living through gynaecological cancer: three typologies," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(17‐18), pages 2626-2635, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Malene Missel & Mette Hansen & Rie Jackson & Mette Siemsen & Mai Nanna Schønau, 2018. "Re‐embodying eating after surgery for oesophageal cancer: Patients' lived experiences of participating in an education and counselling nutritional intervention," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(7-8), pages 1420-1430, April.
    2. Ragnhild Johanne Tveit Sekse & Gail Dunberger & Mette Linnet Olesen & Maria Østerbye & Lene Seibæk, 2019. "Lived experiences and quality of life after gynaecological cancer—An integrative review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(9-10), pages 1393-1421, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:28:y:2019:i:1-2:p:289-299. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.