Ethical conflicts experienced by community nurses: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite news reports of morally distressing situations resulting from complex and demanding community-care delivery in Canada, there has been little research on the topic of ethical conflicts experienced by community-based health care professionals. RESEARCH AIM: To identify ethical conflicts experienced by community nurses. RESEARCH DESIGN: Data were collected using semi-structured interviews and then relevant text was extracted and condensed using qualitative content analysis. This research was part of a larger grounded theory project examining how community nurses manage ethical conflict. RESEARCH CONTEXT AND PARTICIPANTS: Community nurses, including 13 public health nurses and 11 home care nurses from two Canadian provinces, were interviewed. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Study approval was granted by the Health Research Ethics Authority of Newfoundland and Labrador and by provincial health authorities. FINDINGS: Seven ethical conflicts were identified and assigned to one of two groups. In the grouping categorized as challenges with obligations or risks, the ethical conflicts were: (1) screening for child developmental issues knowing there is a lack of timely early intervention services; (2) encountering inequities in the health care system; (3) not fulfilling principles, goals, and initiatives of primary and secondary prevention; and (4) feeling powerless to advocate for clients. The remaining ethical conflicts were categorized as challenges with process, risks, and consequences, and were: (5) jeopardizing therapeutic relationships while reporting signs of a child at risk; (6) managing confidentiality when neighbors are clients; and (7) supporting client autonomy and decision-making but uncertain of the consequences. CONCLUSIONS: Research investigation will continue to be important to raise awareness and mobilize ethics supports as health care services are steadily shifted from institutional to community settings. Moreover, with heightened potential for communicable disease outbreaks across international borders from global warming, community nurses around the world will continue to be required to address ethically-difficult care situations with competence and compassion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".