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 OpenAlexaffabout
Christina Lamb, Yolanda Babenko‐Mould, Marilyn Evans, Carol Wong, Ken Kirkwood

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0140.024
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing EthicsSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207