10.1016/s0197-2510(09)70221-9

Vollständiger Abstract

Worum geht es in dieser Arbeit?

AIM: To explore how early-career nurse researchers in China perceive and experience the research ethics review process. BACKGROUND: Ethics review protects participants and supports research integrity. Nursing researchers may encounter procedures that do not readily account for low-risk, qualitative and care-oriented designs. Recent Chinese national ethics-review measures provide simplified pathways for minimal-risk studies, but how these operate for nursing research is not well understood. DESIGN: A descriptive qualitative study. METHODS: Twelve nursing researchers within the first 10 years of a research-active role were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in Mandarin between February and March 2025. Data were analysed using a codebook approach to thematic analysis. The study was reported in accordance with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research. RESULTS: Four themes were developed: perceived benefits of ethics review, systemic friction, the black box of review and the expertise gap. Participants valued ethics review for protecting participants and strengthening rigour, but described complex and repetitive procedures, long waits for approval, limited transparency and committees they perceived as lacking nursing expertise. CONCLUSION: Participants supported ethical oversight but perceived a mismatch between some review practices and the risk profile and methods of nursing research. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Nursing schools, hospitals and research leaders should provide pre-submission consultation, practical ethics education and mentoring for early-career researchers, and should develop a pool of nurses prepared to contribute to multidisciplinary ethics review. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICY: Regulators and institutions should operationalise risk-proportionate review with clear eligibility criteria, transparent reasons for decisions, monitored timelines and access to relevant disciplinary expertise.

Abstract: PubMed · Datensatz