Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AIM(S): To examine the unpaid advisory, navigational and hands-on health work that nurses perform for relatives, friends and neighbours and conceptualise it as kin-directed care coordination. DESIGN: Position paper. METHODS: A critical discussion drawing on feminist scholarship on care work, filial piety and gendered family care, double-duty caregiving, work-family boundaries and recovery, professional regulation and nurse retention. RESULTS: Feminist scholarship has shown that unpaid care work sustains economies and falls mainly on women. Double-duty caregiving research has described nurses advising relatives, but not the standing role in which a nurse becomes health adviser and navigator for a whole kin network. Filial piety and gender may shape who is asked and how hard refusal is. We describe five practices: interpreting, triaging and advising, brokering access, hands-on care and bearing accountability. It crosses the work-home boundary, may erode recovery, carries professional obligations and is absent from workload measures, workforce surveys and care-economy accounts. Health systems with weak primary care may rely on this work without counting it. CONCLUSION: Kin-directed care coordination can be understood as a distinct, culturally shaped, probably gendered, and unmeasured form of nurses' unpaid care work that warrants recognition in research, regulation, and policy. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Nurse managers, educators, regulators, and researchers can name and measure this work and address it in retention strategies, professional guidance, and ethics education. IMPACT: This paper addresses the absence of a defined concept, and of any measure, for nurses' health work for their wider kin and social networks. It proposes a concept, five practices and a measurement agenda. It will inform nurse leaders, educators, regulators and workforce planners. REPORTING METHOD: Not applicable to this position paper. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct, or reporting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jiang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: