PubMed · 14662666
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Ronald Ruskin. 2003-12-09. Worry.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14662666/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
This study aimed to develop the concept of family vulnerability. Data were collected through Qualitative Concept Analysis, which involves two phases. In the first, theoretical phase, data from literature were used for identification of the theoretical attributes of the concept. In the second, field phase, data were collected by means of observations and interviews with twelve families going through the experience of a child's disease and hospitalization. Symbolic Interactionism was used as a theoretical framework, which supported Grounded Theory, applied to guide data collection and analysis in the field phase. As a result of phase II, a theoretical model was built, whose central category defines family vulnerability as FEELING THREATENED IN THEIR AUTONOMY, due to the interactions between family members, illness and health team. The comparison between the two analyses allowed for a theoretical proposition of family vulnerability and advances in terms of theoretical knowledge on family nursing.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
This paper presents the results from a qualitative study in which the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) was used to analyze deregulation of the distribution of medicine in Denmark in October 2001. The study is based on qualitative methods, and it examines the policy process between 1996 and 2001. Data sources were documents and qualitative interviews. The results show that minor modifications of the ACF are needed to make it fully applicable to the case of pharmacy policy, especially when the policy process proceeds in a predominantly corporatist state. We found that the policy process was framed by two coalitions advocating different belief systems. One coalition wanted the pharmacy sector to be controlled by the state, the other wanted a full-scale liberalization. Throughout the process there was a general shift in policy core beliefs among the actors involved--moving from positively disposed towards a market-oriented reform to being more negatively disposed towards such a reform. We argue that two factors contributed to this. First, as the discussions about a reform became more specific, technical matters began to influence the actors. Second, the legitimacy of a solution which did not alter the regulation of the pharmacy sector radically, was reinforced by institutionalized norms that made politicians take onboard pharmacy professionals' concerns.