Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37639076›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2023

Research ethics in practice: An analysis of ethical issues encountered in qualitative health research with mental health service users and relatives.

Sarah Potthoff, Christin Hempeler, Jakov Gather, Astrid Gieselmann, Jochen Vollmann, Matthé Scholten

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. How Lived Experience Advisory Groups Contribute to the Design and Conduct of Mental Health Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah PotthoffInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Markstr. 258a, 44799, Bochum, Germany. sarah.potthoff@rub.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0434-8218
Christin HempelerInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Markstr. 258a, 44799, Bochum, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8532-3284
Jakov GatherInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Markstr. 258a, 44799, Bochum, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1681-7472
Astrid GieselmannInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Markstr. 258a, 44799, Bochum, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2098-3054
Jochen VollmannInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Markstr. 258a, 44799, Bochum, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0148-6431
Matthé ScholtenInstitute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Markstr. 258a, 44799, Bochum, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8000-8974
Ruhr University Bochum · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DELWL-Universitätsklinikum Bochum · DEUniversity Hospitals of the Ruhr-University of Bochum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ethics review of qualitative health research poses various challenges that are due to a mismatch between the current practice of ethics review and the nature of qualitative methodology. The process of obtaining ethics approval for a study by a research ethics committee before the start of a research study has been described as "procedural ethics" and the identification and handling of ethical issues by researchers during the research process as "ethics in practice." While some authors dispute and other authors defend the use of procedural ethics in relation to qualitative health research, there is general agreement that it needs to be supplemented with ethics in practice. This article aims to provide an illustration of research ethics in practice by reflecting on the ways in which we identified and addressed ethical and methodological issues that arose in the context of an interview study with mental health service users and relatives. We describe the challenges we faced and the solutions we found in relation to the potential vulnerability of research participants, the voluntariness of consent, the increase of participant access and the heterogeneity of the sample, the protection of privacy and internal confidentiality, and the consideration of personal and contextual factors.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentMental Health ServicesConfidentialityEthics, ResearchHumansQualitative ResearchData protectionInformed consentInstitutional review boardMental capacityMental healthcarePsychiatryQualitative researchResearch ethicsVoluntarinessVulnerability

Identifiers

PMID37639076
PMCPMC10725844
OpenAlexW4386209312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.