Navigating ethical challenges in global health clinical settings: A collaborative approach between nursing students, faculty, and preceptors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ethical challenges encountered in global health settings during clinical placements shape nursing students' moral development and professional integrity. PURPOSE: This study aimed to explore how 4th-year baccalaureate nursing students and recent nursing graduates navigate ethical challenges in resource-limited global health settings, from the perspectives of students, faculty members, and preceptors. DESIGN: This qualitative study utilized Sally Thorne's interpretive description methodology to generate knowledge that could inform teaching practices within a Canadian School of Nursing. METHODS: Purposive sampling and one-on-one semi-structured interviews were carried out with 17 participants including 4th-year nursing students and recent nursing graduates who completed clinical placements in resource-limited international settings, faculty members who taught them, and clinical preceptors who supervised their clinical rotations. Data analysis followed a constant comparative and iterative approach. FINDINGS: The proposed Relational Interplay model illustrates participants' experiences, and emphasizes the interdependent roles of students, preceptors, and faculty in navigating ethical challenges. Four key themes emerged: grappling with cognitive dissonance, engaging in an internal process, undergoing personal transformation, and deepening relational practice. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study may inform the development of global health nursing practicum curricula and provide valuable insights for faculty, preceptors, and students involved in global health nursing experiences.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".