MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795708933 · doi:10.1177/0969733018763996

Conscientious objection and nurses: Results of an interpretive phenomenological study

2018· article· en· W2795708933 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Ethics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretative phenomenological analysisConscientious objectorBioethicsMeaning (existential)NormativeNursingPsychologyHealth careNursing ethicsNonprobability samplingMedicineQualitative researchSociologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: While conscientious objection is a well-known phenomenon in normative and bioethical literature, there is a lack of evidence to support an understanding of what it is like for nurses to make a conscientious objection in clinical practice including the meaning this holds for them and the nursing profession. RESEARCH QUESTION: The question guiding this research was: what is the lived experience of conscientious objection for Registered Nurses in Ontario? RESEARCH DESIGN: Interpretive phenomenological methodology was used to gain an in-depth understanding of what it means to be a nurse making a conscientious objection. Purposive sampling with in-depth interview methods was used to collect and then analyze data through an iterative process. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: Eight nurse participants were interviewed from across practice settings in Ontario, Canada. Each participant was interviewed twice over 9 months. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: This study was conducted in accordance with Health Science Research Ethics Board approval and all participants gave consent. FINDINGS: Six themes emerged from data analysis: encountering the problem, knowing oneself, taking a stand, alone and uncertain, caring for others, and perceptions of support. DISCUSSION: This study offers an initial understanding of what it is like to be a nurse making a conscientious objection in clinical practice. Implications for nursing practice, education, policy, and further research are discussed. CONCLUSION: Addressing ethical issues in nursing practice is complex. The need for education across nursing, healthcare disciplines and socio-political sectors is essential to respond to nurses' ethical concerns giving rise to objections. Conscience emerged as an informant to nurses' conscientious objections. The need for morally inclusive environments and addressing challenging ethical questions as well as the concept of conscience are relevant to advancing nursing ethics and ethical nursing practice.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.231
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it